Net impact of the Ukraine war on global carbon emissions is an interesting question.
- global economic slowdown and less production - increased oil price leading to reduced vehicle mileage and energy use - slowdown in Russian exploration and extraction due to sanctions - trigger for Europe to speed up weaning itself off fossil fuels
+ temporary increased coal burning + increased oil price spurs further exploration and production of shale oil and gas + Iran and Venezuela ramp up production + Russia ceases any meaningful efforts (if they ever existed) to reduce its own emissions + domestic political agenda shifts from net zero to subsidising car drivers
Long term this has surely got to speed up Western economies' transition to net zero but I suspect short term it's probably an unhelpful distraction.
I don't think it's that easy for Iran and Venezuela to ramp up production, as their energy industries are help back by a lack of Western technology.
If Schlumbeger & co were to enter those countries, then you could see a real ramp in production in both places on a five year view.
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.
An answer which still ignores the massive element of luck that brought us to this point without a nuclear exchange. It is the same sort of quasi-religious argument that claims the development of humanity was inevitable because we are here at the end of a massive chain of random chance.
We have been lucky to date. That is no guarantee that we will be lucky going forward.
But all solutions involve luck. Whilst even one nation has NW, the world will need luck for them not to be used.
Saying MAD is rubbish because it relies on an element of luck is nonsense when every other potential solution also relies on luck, mostly to an even greater extent.
I was not saying it was rubbish. What I was saying was that it is not the great safety net everyone believes it to be.
It will not, for example, stop the use of battlefield nukes in Ukraine- a claim that is made very often by talking heads both in the mainstream media and online. The Russians simply don't regard battlefield nukes as being anything other than a bigger bang. It is one part of their arsenal which will be brought into use if they feel it can give them a tactical advantage on the battlefield. The same goes for chemical weapons. What they do understand is the potential it has to shock the West and push them off balance in a way that the Russians can then take advantage of.
Thankfully our own intelligence and planning people in the military realise this and operate on the expectation that the Russians will use battlefield nukes at some point just as they have chemical weapons. The interesting problem is going to be convincing Western politicians that this is not, in Russian eyes, the escalation they perceive it to be.
There we can agree. Wesley Clark was on CNN last night with a nice list of potential, graduated escalations that could be used in response to either chemical weapons use, or tactical nukes. And he, quite rightly, insisted that NATO keep a strong element of strategic ambiguity as to which of the options would be used when.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Early on in this conflict, I assumed that Putin was incredibly smart, and had wargamed every angle. Essentially, this man made tens (or hundreds) of billions, consolidated his hold on Russia, crushed rebellious provinces, etc.
Basically, like many others, I assumed that Putin was playing 5D chess.
We've all been slow to respond to new information. Putin wasn't playing 5D chess: he was woefully ignorant of the capabilities of his own armed forces, and of the likely resistance of the Ukrainians. He massively miscalculated and has taken enormous damage.
I think you are still of the view that Russia is a military superpower that just needs to reorient their forces to deal a knock out blow. And I think that is wrong. Or, at least, it ignores the fact that what remains of the Russian forces outside Ukraine is either (a) conscripts, (b) holding down other rebellious provinces or (c) Putin's own personal security detail in Moscow.
Now, can they grind the Ukrainians into a bloody stalemate in the East? Probably. But that isn't victory for Russia. That's a continued crushing cost, as they tip more men and weapons into a part of a foreign country that doesn't want them.
And every day Russia remains in this fight, the West weans itself a little more off of Russia's energy.
Winter War 1939-40 was both a major setback for Soviet military AND a huge wakeup call.
Barbarosa in 1941 showed that Stalin & Co. had not yet fully woken up. But German (and western) assumption that USSR was nothing but a paper tiger proved mistaken, to put it mildly.
However, one thing that Soviet had in 1942-45 was massive support from US (Lend Lease) and UK. Somehow don't see THAT happening. Or even much aid from China save for sanctions busting.
And of course in WW2 they were defending their own country. Makes a huge difference.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
That was how I felt at the beginning of the conflict. It seemed too good to be true.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Early on in this conflict, I assumed that Putin was incredibly smart, and had wargamed every angle. Essentially, this man made tens (or hundreds) of billions, consolidated his hold on Russia, crushed rebellious provinces, etc.
Basically, like many others, I assumed that Putin was playing 5D chess.
We've all been slow to respond to new information. Putin wasn't playing 5D chess: he was woefully ignorant of the capabilities of his own armed forces, and of the likely resistance of the Ukrainians. He massively miscalculated and has taken enormous damage.
I think you are still of the view that Russia is a military superpower that just needs to reorient their forces to deal a knock out blow. And I think that is wrong. Or, at least, it ignores the fact that what remains of the Russian forces outside Ukraine is either (a) conscripts, (b) holding down other rebellious provinces or (c) Putin's own personal security detail in Moscow.
Now, can they grind the Ukrainians into a bloody stalemate in the East? Probably. But that isn't victory for Russia. That's a continued crushing cost, as they tip more men and weapons into a part of a foreign country that doesn't want them.
And every day Russia remains in this fight, the West weans itself a little more off of Russia's energy.
His mystical ravings about Russian spiritual space weren't compatible with 5D chess - although it's interesting to note the greatest ever chess player, Bobby Fischer, was prone to highly irrational world views.
But, yes, I've had to revise my opinion of him. I'd had him down as essentially a hard-headed amoral gangster getting off on personal riches and power. However it appears there's some softhead ethno-nationalist delusions of grandeur in there too.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Early on in this conflict, I assumed that Putin was incredibly smart, and had wargamed every angle. Essentially, this man made tens (or hundreds) of billions, consolidated his hold on Russia, crushed rebellious provinces, etc.
Basically, like many others, I assumed that Putin was playing 5D chess.
We've all been slow to respond to new information. Putin wasn't playing 5D chess: he was woefully ignorant of the capabilities of his own armed forces, and of the likely resistance of the Ukrainians. He massively miscalculated and has taken enormous damage.
I think you are still of the view that Russia is a military superpower that just needs to reorient their forces to deal a knock out blow. And I think that is wrong. Or, at least, it ignores the fact that what remains of the Russian forces outside Ukraine is either (a) conscripts, (b) holding down other rebellious provinces or (c) Putin's own personal security detail in Moscow.
Now, can they grind the Ukrainians into a bloody stalemate in the East? Probably. But that isn't victory for Russia. That's a continued crushing cost, as they tip more men and weapons into a part of a foreign country that doesn't want them.
And every day Russia remains in this fight, the West weans itself a little more off of Russia's energy.
His mystical ravings about Russian spiritual space weren't compatible with 5D chess - although it's interesting to note the greatest ever chess player, Bobby Fischer, was prone to highly irrational world views.
But, yes, I've had to revise my opinion of him. I'd had him down as essentially a hard-headed amoral gangster getting off on personal riches and power. However it appears there's some softhead ethno-nationalist delusions of grandeur in there too.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
That was how I felt at the beginning of the conflict. It seemed too good to be true.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
But Putin is willing to pay that cost. I fear Anabobazina is closer to how it will go. He seems very 19th century in output, and he can ignore the astronomical losses to get a 'win', even if it is a poisoned challice bought at great cost.
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.
An answer which still ignores the massive element of luck that brought us to this point without a nuclear exchange. It is the same sort of quasi-religious argument that claims the development of humanity was inevitable because we are here at the end of a massive chain of random chance.
We have been lucky to date. That is no guarantee that we will be lucky going forward.
But all solutions involve luck. Whilst even one nation has NW, the world will need luck for them not to be used.
Saying MAD is rubbish because it relies on an element of luck is nonsense when every other potential solution also relies on luck, mostly to an even greater extent.
I was not saying it was rubbish. What I was saying was that it is not the great safety net everyone believes it to be.
It will not, for example, stop the use of battlefield nukes in Ukraine- a claim that is made very often by talking heads both in the mainstream media and online. The Russians simply don't regard battlefield nukes as being anything other than a bigger bang. It is one part of their arsenal which will be brought into use if they feel it can give them a tactical advantage on the battlefield. The same goes for chemical weapons. What they do understand is the potential it has to shock the West and push them off balance in a way that the Russians can then take advantage of.
Thankfully our own intelligence and planning people in the military realise this and operate on the expectation that the Russians will use battlefield nukes at some point just as they have chemical weapons. The interesting problem is going to be convincing Western politicians that this is not, in Russian eyes, the escalation they perceive it to be.
There we can agree. Wesley Clark was on CNN last night with a nice list of potential, graduated escalations that could be used in response to either chemical weapons use, or tactical nukes. And he, quite rightly, insisted that NATO keep a strong element of strategic ambiguity as to which of the options would be used when.
The Russian's having been trying to sell the "We believe battlefield nukes are no big deal" since the depths of the Cold War. That and "The capitalists will stand, shocked and amazed at the sight of mushroom clouds."
The slight problems with that start with awkward questions that appeared in position papers from Frunze etc - those darned opponents might start thinking that just because you've used them, its ok for them to use them.
Then someone hits a not very battlefield target - according to you. A supply dump that is just a bit too far behind the lines maybe.
Or maybe it's yield is a tad higher than you'd like. Before you know it, the big weed wackers are in play and there are tears before bedtime....
What it comes down to, is that the Soviet Doctrine and what the generals think on the subject diverged. A lot.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Early on in this conflict, I assumed that Putin was incredibly smart, and had wargamed every angle. Essentially, this man made tens (or hundreds) of billions, consolidated his hold on Russia, crushed rebellious provinces, etc.
Basically, like many others, I assumed that Putin was playing 5D chess.
We've all been slow to respond to new information. Putin wasn't playing 5D chess: he was woefully ignorant of the capabilities of his own armed forces, and of the likely resistance of the Ukrainians. He massively miscalculated and has taken enormous damage.
I think you are still of the view that Russia is a military superpower that just needs to reorient their forces to deal a knock out blow. And I think that is wrong. Or, at least, it ignores the fact that what remains of the Russian forces outside Ukraine is either (a) conscripts, (b) holding down other rebellious provinces or (c) Putin's own personal security detail in Moscow.
Now, can they grind the Ukrainians into a bloody stalemate in the East? Probably. But that isn't victory for Russia. That's a continued crushing cost, as they tip more men and weapons into a part of a foreign country that doesn't want them.
And every day Russia remains in this fight, the West weans itself a little more off of Russia's energy.
His mystical ravings about Russian spiritual space weren't compatible with 5D chess - although it's interesting to note the greatest ever chess player, Bobby Fischer, was prone to highly irrational world views.
But, yes, I've had to revise my opinion of him. I'd had him down as essentially a hard-headed amoral gangster getting off on personal riches and power. However it appears there's some softhead ethno-nationalist delusions of grandeur in there too.
5d chess...
You can't even set the pieces.
Yes, just what is 5D chess? The 2D version is hard enough. Too hard tbh. Makes your head hurt.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Hmm, there are various interpretations - I'm sure a Tory such has HYUFD, given his views on the mystic unity of the Anglo-Saxon [edit] former Dominions, has a different idea of the correct direction to take than, say, your Labour-voting student.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Early on in this conflict, I assumed that Putin was incredibly smart, and had wargamed every angle. Essentially, this man made tens (or hundreds) of billions, consolidated his hold on Russia, crushed rebellious provinces, etc.
Basically, like many others, I assumed that Putin was playing 5D chess.
We've all been slow to respond to new information. Putin wasn't playing 5D chess: he was woefully ignorant of the capabilities of his own armed forces, and of the likely resistance of the Ukrainians. He massively miscalculated and has taken enormous damage.
I think you are still of the view that Russia is a military superpower that just needs to reorient their forces to deal a knock out blow. And I think that is wrong. Or, at least, it ignores the fact that what remains of the Russian forces outside Ukraine is either (a) conscripts, (b) holding down other rebellious provinces or (c) Putin's own personal security detail in Moscow.
Now, can they grind the Ukrainians into a bloody stalemate in the East? Probably. But that isn't victory for Russia. That's a continued crushing cost, as they tip more men and weapons into a part of a foreign country that doesn't want them.
And every day Russia remains in this fight, the West weans itself a little more off of Russia's energy.
His mystical ravings about Russian spiritual space weren't compatible with 5D chess - although it's interesting to note the greatest ever chess player, Bobby Fischer, was prone to highly irrational world views.
But, yes, I've had to revise my opinion of him. I'd had him down as essentially a hard-headed amoral gangster getting off on personal riches and power. However it appears there's some softhead ethno-nationalist delusions of grandeur in there too.
5d chess...
You can't even set the pieces.
Yes, just what is 5D chess? The 2D version is hard enough. Too hard tbh. Makes your head hurt.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
That was how I felt at the beginning of the conflict. It seemed too good to be true.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
Not so sure Putin & Co planned to completely capture & occupy all Ukraine.
Tend to agree strategist who said argued (in mid-March podcast) that Russian goal was Kyiv (im)pure and simple. And that attacks elsewhere were for purpose of pinning down Ukrainian military defending this turf instead of sending reinforcement to the capital.
Which does NOT mean that they scorn taking, holding & keeping as much as they can, esp. in highly strategic areas. Just that such gains are incidentals - and bargaining chips.
In the final days & hours of Winter War in 1940, Mannerheim focused on keeping Soviets from capturing Viipuri. Not to hold it forever; indeed it's been Vyborg since the 1940s and part of Russia. But rather to give Finnish negotiators one big bargaining chip in order to limit the damage in the inevitable & soon-to-be peace agreement
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
That was how I felt at the beginning of the conflict. It seemed too good to be true.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
But Putin is willing to pay that cost. I fear Anabobazina is closer to how it will go. He seems very 19th century in output, and he can ignore the astronomical losses to get a 'win', even if it is a poisoned challice bought at great cost.
This isn't a "one off", pay the price and get the territory, though.
Once he has it (if he has it), he has to keep it. And that means troops and equipment need to be there, and it's a drain on Russia's scarce resources.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Hmm, there are various interpretations - I'm sure a Tory such has HYUFD, given his views on the mystic unity of the Anglo-Saxon [edit] former Dominions, has a different idea of the correct direction to take than, say, your Labour-voting student.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
To say Putin is NOT winning his war at moment, is not quite same as saying he's losing, let alone lost.
On other hand, settlement that gives him what he already had ante bellum (de facto if not de jure which is not that big a deal, just ask the PM and his cabinet) is NOT a "massive territorial gain".
And strengthening of Ukrainian national identity and of NATO, and host of other developments, is a massive self-defeat for Putin.
Anyone saying 'win' or 'lose' in this war needs to define what those terms mean. It's perfectly possible for Russia to take over a moderate part of Ukraine, yet be left with an economy ruined for decades, a massive population problem and a demeaning of their position in the world. A Pyrrhic victory so pyrrhic as to be non-existent.
In the case of Ukraine, I think a baseline 'win' would be having a sustainable, free and democratic state, that could choose to join the EU (and preferably NATO). Anything more: Donbass, Crimea, etc, would be a bigger win. A 'lose' would be being partially or fully under Russia's thumb.
For this reason, I think a substantive 'win' for Russia would be much harder to achieve every day this war continues. They've already lost a tremendous amount by the fact their military - a source of immense pride to them - has been shown to be rather poor. The 'losses' could easily build up.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
That was how I felt at the beginning of the conflict. It seemed too good to be true.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
Not so sure Putin & Co planned to completely capture & occupy all Ukraine.
Tend to agree strategist who said argued (in mid-March podcast) that Russian goal was Kyiv (im)pure and simple. And that attacks elsewhere were for purpose of pinning down Ukrainian military defending this turf instead of sending reinforcement to the capital.
Which does NOT mean that they scorn taking, holding & keeping as much as they can, esp. in highly strategic areas. Just that such gains are incidentals - and bargaining chips.
In the final days & hours of Winter War in 1940, Mannerheim focused on keeping Soviets from capturing Viipuri. Not to hold it forever; indeed it's been Vyborg since the 1940s and part of Russia. But rather to give Finnish negotiators one big bargaining chip in order to limit the damage in the inevitable & soon-to-be peace agreement
If you read the (since deleted) article from day two of the invasion, it was all about how the Ukrainian problem has been solved and the two peoples reunited.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Hmm, there are various interpretations - I'm sure a Tory such has HYUFD, given his views on the mystic unity of the Anglo-Saxon [edit] former Dominions, has a different idea of the correct direction to take than, say, your Labour-voting student.
Labour are a clear disgrace on that poll
Not necessarily; they may be fizzing with ideas to improve it. 'Current form' is simply the status quo.
I suspect that poll was worded deliberately as antiwokist clickbait.
While back on PB, your truly suggested that the Harry & Megan versus Will & Kate & etc., etc. split in the Royal Family was in large measure due to the shit-for-brains trust currently managing The Firm.
And was told (I paraphrase) bite your fool colonial tongue, the men and women assisting HM and the rest are among Britain's best and brightest.
Personally think that cack-handed mis-management of the recent Royal Tour of West Indies is a BIG argument in favor of my thesis.
Unless of course you believe the Daily Mail. Which on this subject (at least) is less credible than even Boris Johnson 24/7?
Same argument, same answer. The tour has been 'cack-handed' only to the same Twitter-based oxygen wasters who backed Megan and Harry's fact-light allegations in the first place. Their comments are, apart from anything else, grossly disrespectful to the black people involved in hosting the visit.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Hmm, there are various interpretations - I'm sure a Tory such has HYUFD, given his views on the mystic unity of the Anglo-Saxon [edit] former Dominions, has a different idea of the correct direction to take than, say, your Labour-voting student.
Labour are a clear disgrace on that poll
Not necessarily; they may be fizzing with ideas to improve it. 'Current form' is simply the status quo.
I suspect that poll was worded deliberately as antiwokist clickbait.
It was yougov, not the Mail.
Labour fizzing with idea’s to improve the commonwealth. 🤔
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Hmm, there are various interpretations - I'm sure a Tory such has HYUFD, given his views on the mystic unity of the Anglo-Saxon [edit] former Dominions, has a different idea of the correct direction to take than, say, your Labour-voting student.
Labour are a clear disgrace on that poll
Commonwealth = flag waving piccaninny Royal tours, and Games. C'est tout. Not worth getting excited about.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Early on in this conflict, I assumed that Putin was incredibly smart, and had wargamed every angle. Essentially, this man made tens (or hundreds) of billions, consolidated his hold on Russia, crushed rebellious provinces, etc.
Basically, like many others, I assumed that Putin was playing 5D chess.
We've all been slow to respond to new information. Putin wasn't playing 5D chess: he was woefully ignorant of the capabilities of his own armed forces, and of the likely resistance of the Ukrainians. He massively miscalculated and has taken enormous damage.
I think you are still of the view that Russia is a military superpower that just needs to reorient their forces to deal a knock out blow. And I think that is wrong. Or, at least, it ignores the fact that what remains of the Russian forces outside Ukraine is either (a) conscripts, (b) holding down other rebellious provinces or (c) Putin's own personal security detail in Moscow.
Now, can they grind the Ukrainians into a bloody stalemate in the East? Probably. But that isn't victory for Russia. That's a continued crushing cost, as they tip more men and weapons into a part of a foreign country that doesn't want them.
And every day Russia remains in this fight, the West weans itself a little more off of Russia's energy.
Quite the opposite, I thought that when Putin started this he had made a massive mistake and was going to pay for it, the early Ukrainian resistance was tremendous and there where indications that the west might be bothered enough to make a deference.
But the west in nether united or phatically resolute, we are supposedly sanctioning the nation that we are buying close to a billion euros of fuel of a day. with lots of companies still operating.
Russia is committing terrible war crimes, and when one leader criticises, then Macron gets on his 'high hours' and would rather crises the POTUSA than to day a rude word against Putin.
Putin commits genocide, on millions, but we would rather talk about one actor slapping one comedian in LA. Putin guest that we are not interested in standing up for freedom and on the would he was right.
Germany promises to spend 100 billion Euro on defence soon, but cant/won't give Ukraine the weapons it needs now. just 5 billion of Mig 29s, S-300s and more in the last 2 weeks could have saved themselves and the would so much.
The fighting is at a standstill and Putin holds the bits he really wants. He can now dictate a peace treaty, where the would we recognise his gains, and he will feel no obligation to keep his side of the barging when it no longer souts him.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Hmm, there are various interpretations - I'm sure a Tory such has HYUFD, given his views on the mystic unity of the Anglo-Saxon [edit] former Dominions, has a different idea of the correct direction to take than, say, your Labour-voting student.
Labour are a clear disgrace on that poll
Not necessarily; they may be fizzing with ideas to improve it. 'Current form' is simply the status quo.
I suspect that poll was worded deliberately as antiwokist clickbait.
It was yougov, not the Mail.
Labour fizzing with idea’s to improve the commonwealth. 🤔
I don't doubt Yougov got the answers with their customary integrity and competence, but who commissioned it? It's still a damn stupid question wording anyway.
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?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
Yes, why can't everyone get back to good faith highlighting of all that EU & their constituent countries' badness?
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
To say Putin is NOT winning his war at moment, is not quite same as saying he's losing, let alone lost.
On other hand, settlement that gives him what he already had ante bellum (de facto if not de jure which is not that big a deal, just ask the PM and his cabinet) is NOT a "massive territorial gain".
And strengthening of Ukrainian national identity and of NATO, and host of other developments, is a massive self-defeat for Putin.
Anyone saying 'win' or 'lose' in this war needs to define what those terms mean. It's perfectly possible for Russia to take over a moderate part of Ukraine, yet be left with an economy ruined for decades, a massive population problem and a demeaning of their position in the world. A Pyrrhic victory so pyrrhic as to be non-existent.
In the case of Ukraine, I think a baseline 'win' would be having a sustainable, free and democratic state, that could choose to join the EU (and preferably NATO). Anything more: Donbass, Crimea, etc, would be a bigger win. A 'lose' would be being partially or fully under Russia's thumb.
For this reason, I think a substantive 'win' for Russia would be much harder to achieve every day this war continues. They've already lost a tremendous amount by the fact their military - a source of immense pride to them - has been shown to be rather poor. The 'losses' could easily build up.
I've always thought that Putin has this in mind for his legacy.
He found Russia reduced. He found Russia despised.
He left Russia enlarged. He left Russia feared.
Not sure how it's going - not too well, perhaps - but I don't think he's much bothered by the casualties or the sanctions.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
You completely ignored the fact only 21% of Conservatives do not support the Commonwealth.
Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story.
Though of course the Commonwealth's continuation depends on the support of all its member nations not just the UK.
Hence too Prince William has suggested its symbolic head does not necessarily have to be him in future. It could for example be rotated between all the Commonwealth heads of state as well as the British monarch
While back on PB, your truly suggested that the Harry & Megan versus Will & Kate & etc., etc. split in the Royal Family was in large measure due to the shit-for-brains trust currently managing The Firm.
And was told (I paraphrase) bite your fool colonial tongue, the men and women assisting HM and the rest are among Britain's best and brightest.
Personally think that cack-handed mis-management of the recent Royal Tour of West Indies is a BIG argument in favor of my thesis.
Unless of course you believe the Daily Mail. Which on this subject (at least) is less credible than even Boris Johnson 24/7?
Same argument, same answer. The tour has been 'cack-handed' only to the same Twitter-based oxygen wasters who backed Megan and Harry's fact-light allegations in the first place. Their comments are, apart from anything else, grossly disrespectful to the black people involved in hosting the visit.
YOu mean, oxygen wasters like the DT and the Speccy? I've got hbetter things to do than to cringe to my supposed betters, but I seem to remember those oxygen-wasters being quite critical of the RF tour.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops. .
I first became cautiously optimistic when I heard that Putin was calling out the Spetsnaz for specific praise. I knew instantly that that meant that a lot of them weren't coming home.
And the likes of Oryx have played an oversized role in changing the minds of people like me - with an healthily skeptical interest in the overall battlefield situation but no access of raw data - about how the war is progressing. Chapeau to Oryx ...
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
That was how I felt at the beginning of the conflict. It seemed too good to be true.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
Not so sure Putin & Co planned to completely capture & occupy all Ukraine.
Tend to agree strategist who said argued (in mid-March podcast) that Russian goal was Kyiv (im)pure and simple. And that attacks elsewhere were for purpose of pinning down Ukrainian military defending this turf instead of sending reinforcement to the capital.
Which does NOT mean that they scorn taking, holding & keeping as much as they can, esp. in highly strategic areas. Just that such gains are incidentals - and bargaining chips.
In the final days & hours of Winter War in 1940, Mannerheim focused on keeping Soviets from capturing Viipuri. Not to hold it forever; indeed it's been Vyborg since the 1940s and part of Russia. But rather to give Finnish negotiators one big bargaining chip in order to limit the damage in the inevitable & soon-to-be peace agreement
If you read the (since deleted) article from day two of the invasion, it was all about how the Ukrainian problem has been solved and the two peoples reunited.
And a Kyiv pure and simple strategy would not have required the effort in Mariupol, nor the stalled push to Odesa with the marines sitting cooped up in landing ships for a couple of weeks.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
That was how I felt at the beginning of the conflict. It seemed too good to be true.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
But Putin is willing to pay that cost. I fear Anabobazina is closer to how it will go. He seems very 19th century in output, and he can ignore the astronomical losses to get a 'win', even if it is a poisoned challice bought at great cost.
This isn't a "one off", pay the price and get the territory, though.
Once he has it (if he has it), he has to keep it. And that means troops and equipment need to be there, and it's a drain on Russia's scarce resources.
Trying to defend a land mass the size of Russia is very difficult. The amount of borders, countries, seas... a phenomenal task. On top of this, the main urban areas are very difficult to defend, and are now exposed to what Russia views as hostile states. After starting on Ukraine, which has been difficult, Russia now has the problem of potential NATO expansion in Sweden and Finland - so NATO on a 1300km border a few hundred kilometres from St Petersburg.
In no way are Russia winning, in anything other than a completely superficial way.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
You completely ignored the fact only 21% of Conservatives do not support the Commonwealth.
Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story.
Though of course the Commonwealth's continuation depends on the support of all its member nations not just the UK.
Hence too Prince William has suggested its symbolic head does not necessarily have to be him in future. It could for example be rotated between all the Commonwealth heads of state as well as the British monarch
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
You completely ignored the fact only 21% of Conservatives do not support the Commonwealth.
Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story.
Though of course the Commonwealth's continuation depends on the support of all its member nations not just the UK.
Hence too Prince William has suggested its symbolic head does not necessarily have to be him in future. It could for example be rotated between all the Commonwealth heads of state as well as the British monarch
So? 29% of Tories couldn't give a monkey's about the Commonwealth, it seems. So I'm adding them together to prove that Tories hate the Commonwealth IN ITS CURRENT FORM. I wonder why?
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?
87.5% of the 2021 polls were published by Unionist media. That they appear to have suddenly desisted (or at least desisted from publishing the findings) speaks volumes.
Mm, that's about 7/8 - so that leaves just 3 polls with non-Unionist funders. One every four months on average. And we're only three momths into 2022. Barring posh Bayesian analysis, a very rough conclusion is that we can't legitimately rule out the null hypothesis that the non-Unionist funders are behaving normally, all other things equal. Which is a massive contrast.
How many of those polls were conducted in the run up to the 2021 election? Perhaps an innocent explanation.
If there is a big swing to indy, why haven't the indy-minded funders done a few polls? Cos it might mean Sturgeon actually has to run a referendum next year?
Different parliament, but admittedly a two for one.
Yeah, would make sense to ask the questions together. I know next to nothing about polling though.
If we saw indy yes at 55+ (maybe 60+?) then a wildcat referendum would be hard to resist.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
You completely ignored the fact only 21% of Conservatives do not support the Commonwealth.
Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story.
Though of course the Commonwealth's continuation depends on the support of all its member nations not just the UK.
Hence too Prince William has suggested its symbolic head does not necessarily have to be him in future. It could for example be rotated between all the Commonwealth heads of state as well as the British monarch
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Wow. How does this compare with recent years? One thing that strikes me is possible (or rather probable) impact of "in current form" on responses.
I'm one Fenian who believes that Ireland should never have left the Commonwealth. And that it should rejoin at earliest opportunity. A belief I reckon would be shared (if they were with us today) of Charles Stewart Parnell, Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins AND Eamon de Valera to name but a few. Heck, maybe even Countess Marchevicz.
Of course I'm a pointy-headed liberal. As I also such dodgy constructs as the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America and the United Federation of Planets. In theory, and even occasionally in practice.
One of the best aspects of Queen Elizabeth II's long reign has been her leadership of the Commonwealth, through thick & thin.
Sad to the extent that Royal Family Feud has contributed to erosion of support
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
That was how I felt at the beginning of the conflict. It seemed too good to be true.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
Not so sure Putin & Co planned to completely capture & occupy all Ukraine.
Tend to agree strategist who said argued (in mid-March podcast) that Russian goal was Kyiv (im)pure and simple. And that attacks elsewhere were for purpose of pinning down Ukrainian military defending this turf instead of sending reinforcement to the capital.
Which does NOT mean that they scorn taking, holding & keeping as much as they can, esp. in highly strategic areas. Just that such gains are incidentals - and bargaining chips.
In the final days & hours of Winter War in 1940, Mannerheim focused on keeping Soviets from capturing Viipuri. Not to hold it forever; indeed it's been Vyborg since the 1940s and part of Russia. But rather to give Finnish negotiators one big bargaining chip in order to limit the damage in the inevitable & soon-to-be peace agreement
If you read the (since deleted) article from day two of the invasion, it was all about how the Ukrainian problem has been solved and the two peoples reunited.
And a Kyiv pure and simple strategy would not have required the effort in Mariupol, nor the stalled push to Odesa with the marines sitting cooped up in landing ships for a couple of weeks.
Yes, if the aims were so limited there would have been no need to waste resources so widely. It wouldn't be a bargaining counter, it just sucks in troops.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
That was how I felt at the beginning of the conflict. It seemed too good to be true.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
But Putin is willing to pay that cost. I fear Anabobazina is closer to how it will go. He seems very 19th century in output, and he can ignore the astronomical losses to get a 'win', even if it is a poisoned challice bought at great cost.
Only up to a point. Dictatorships tend to get stronger during military conflicts but they also get more brittle. At some point, they snap. And, for Russia, that snapping tends to come after humiliating military defeats. We are not there yet in Ukraine, but unless Russia sues for peace now, it is shaping up that way.
- Cases - UP. R is close to 1. - In hospital - UP - MV beds - UP - Admissions UP. R is reducing slowly. - Deaths - UP
Don't you mean cases does? only very slightly, but if you compare todays number with same day last week, or this week with last week, then cases are down, all be it by only 3%, but down is down.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
You completely ignored the fact only 21% of Conservatives do not support the Commonwealth.
Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story.
Though of course the Commonwealth's continuation depends on the support of all its member nations not just the UK.
Hence too Prince William has suggested its symbolic head does not necessarily have to be him in future. It could for example be rotated between all the Commonwealth heads of state as well as the British monarch
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Wow. How does this compare with recent years? One thing that strikes me is possible (or rather probable) impact of "in current form" on responses.
I'm one Fenian who believes that Ireland should never have left the Commonwealth. And that it should rejoin at earliest opportunity. A belief I reckon would be shared (if they were with us today) of Charles Stewart Parnell, Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins AND Eamon de Valera to name but a few. Heck, maybe even Countess Marchevicz.
Of course I'm a pointy-headed liberal. As I also such dodgy constructs as the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America and the United Federation of Planets. In theory, and even occasionally in practice.
One of the best aspects of Queen Elizabeth II's long reign has been her leadership of the Commonwealth, through thick & thin.
Sad to the extent that Royal Family Feud has contributed to erosion of support
Over half the Commonwealth became Republics or got their own head of state IN the Queen's reign.
The British Empire too almost entirely ended in the reign of her and her father (apart from George IIIrd losing the American colonies and George Vth losing most of Ireland).
However to keep the Commonwealth it has to be an equal relationship not top down under the British monarch. The Queen has done a good job on the Commonwealth at least and for the UK but going forward its members must be equals for it to work not seen as a watered down British Empire under the British monarch. Hence William correctly stated he may not even be head of the Commonwealth when he becomes King
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Hmm, there are various interpretations - I'm sure a Tory such has HYUFD, given his views on the mystic unity of the Anglo-Saxon [edit] former Dominions, has a different idea of the correct direction to take than, say, your Labour-voting student.
Labour are a clear disgrace on that poll
Commonwealth = flag waving piccaninny Royal tours, and Games. C'est tout. Not worth getting excited about.
You old cynic Z. Lazy lazy cynicism. 😠
Let me sell you a dream. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is this idea of commonwealth of Nations already bringing us closer together. Holding us together. A commonwealth to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we will seek one another, seek each other out to thrawt our lonerism, where we know lies the truth of all our weaknesses, in our aloneness - so we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our Commonwealth is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. Where we can live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. Because you cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. When we are Venturing forth together into unknown territory, every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, by our love and our faith. The commonwealth, what is my wealth is yours, let’s all hearts join with ours as one - it’s never been more relevant.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Wow. How does this compare with recent years? One thing that strikes me is possible (or rather probable) impact of "in current form" on responses.
I'm one Fenian who believes that Ireland should never have left the Commonwealth. And that it should rejoin at earliest opportunity. A belief I reckon would be shared (if they were with us today) of Charles Stewart Parnell, Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins AND Eamon de Valera to name but a few. Heck, maybe even Countess Marchevicz.
Of course I'm a pointy-headed liberal. As I also such dodgy constructs as the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America and the United Federation of Planets. In theory, and even occasionally in practice.
One of the best aspects of Queen Elizabeth II's long reign has been her leadership of the Commonwealth, through thick & thin.
Sad to the extent that Royal Family Feud has contributed to erosion of support
Over half the Commonwealth became Republics or got their own head of state IN the Queen's reign.
The British Empire too almost entirely ended in the reign of her and her father (apart from George IIIrd losing the American colonies and George Vth losing most of Ireland).
However to keep the Commonwealth it has to be an equal relationship not top down under the British monarch. The Queen has done a good job on that at least but going forward it's members must be equals for it to work not seen as a watered down British Empire under the British monarch. Hence William correctly stated he may not even be head of the Commonwealth when he becomes King
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
You completely ignored the fact only 21% of Conservatives do not support the Commonwealth.
Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story.
Though of course the Commonwealth's continuation depends on the support of all its member nations not just the UK.
Hence too Prince William has suggested its symbolic head does not necessarily have to be him in future. It could for example be rotated between all the Commonwealth heads of state as well as the British monarch
While back on PB, your truly suggested that the Harry & Megan versus Will & Kate & etc., etc. split in the Royal Family was in large measure due to the shit-for-brains trust currently managing The Firm.
And was told (I paraphrase) bite your fool colonial tongue, the men and women assisting HM and the rest are among Britain's best and brightest.
Personally think that cack-handed mis-management of the recent Royal Tour of West Indies is a BIG argument in favor of my thesis.
Unless of course you believe the Daily Mail. Which on this subject (at least) is less credible than even Boris Johnson 24/7?
Same argument, same answer. The tour has been 'cack-handed' only to the same Twitter-based oxygen wasters who backed Megan and Harry's fact-light allegations in the first place. Their comments are, apart from anything else, grossly disrespectful to the black people involved in hosting the visit.
Daily Gleaner coverage of Royal Tour is interesting mix:
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
You completely ignored the fact only 21% of Conservatives do not support the Commonwealth.
Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story.
Though of course the Commonwealth's continuation depends on the support of all its member nations not just the UK.
Hence too Prince William has suggested its symbolic head does not necessarily have to be him in future. It could for example be rotated between all the Commonwealth heads of state as well as the British monarch
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
What does that question mean? I don’t think it should continue in its current form (to survive it clearly needs to be less royal family centric), but what I mean by that could be completely different from someone else, and it’s likely neither of us wants to scrap it altogether.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Wow. How does this compare with recent years? One thing that strikes me is possible (or rather probable) impact of "in current form" on responses.
I'm one Fenian who believes that Ireland should never have left the Commonwealth. And that it should rejoin at earliest opportunity. A belief I reckon would be shared (if they were with us today) of Charles Stewart Parnell, Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins AND Eamon de Valera to name but a few. Heck, maybe even Countess Marchevicz.
Of course I'm a pointy-headed liberal. As I also such dodgy constructs as the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America and the United Federation of Planets. In theory, and even occasionally in practice.
One of the best aspects of Queen Elizabeth II's long reign has been her leadership of the Commonwealth, through thick & thin.
Sad to the extent that Royal Family Feud has contributed to erosion of support
Over half the Commonwealth became Republics or got their own head of state IN the Queen's reign.
The British Empire too almost entirely ended in the reign of her and her father (apart from George IIIrd losing the American colonies and George Vth losing most of Ireland).
However to keep the Commonwealth it has to be an equal relationship not top down under the British monarch. The Queen has done a good job on that at least but going forward it's members must be equals for it to work not seen as a watered down British Empire under the British monarch. Hence William correctly stated he may not even be head of the Commonwealth when he becomes King
Not 'British'. UK. NI hasn't left yet.
British. Britain is synonymous with the UK. You are thinking of Great Britain. Though this distinction might be lost by current Tory spin which involves saying "UK" whenever they'd have previously said Britain in order to pretend Boris gives a damn what Northern Ireland's voters think.
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.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
That was how I felt at the beginning of the conflict. It seemed too good to be true.
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
Not so sure Putin & Co planned to completely capture & occupy all Ukraine.
Tend to agree strategist who said argued (in mid-March podcast) that Russian goal was Kyiv (im)pure and simple. And that attacks elsewhere were for purpose of pinning down Ukrainian military defending this turf instead of sending reinforcement to the capital.
Which does NOT mean that they scorn taking, holding & keeping as much as they can, esp. in highly strategic areas. Just that such gains are incidentals - and bargaining chips.
In the final days & hours of Winter War in 1940, Mannerheim focused on keeping Soviets from capturing Viipuri. Not to hold it forever; indeed it's been Vyborg since the 1940s and part of Russia. But rather to give Finnish negotiators one big bargaining chip in order to limit the damage in the inevitable & soon-to-be peace agreement
If you read the (since deleted) article from day two of the invasion, it was all about how the Ukrainian problem has been solved and the two peoples reunited.
And a Kyiv pure and simple strategy would not have required the effort in Mariupol, nor the stalled push to Odesa with the marines sitting cooped up in landing ships for a couple of weeks.
Yes, if the aims were so limited there would have been no need to waste resources so widely. It wouldn't be a bargaining counter, it just sucks in troops.
A well-run military would have run things better, no doubt.
Hard to argue that Force Z getting bogged down then doubling down is evidence for their strategic planing, one way or another.
Just that they were fooling not just Putin, but themselves.
- Cases - UP. R is close to 1. - In hospital - UP - MV beds - UP - Admissions UP. R is reducing slowly. - Deaths - UP
Don't you mean cases does? only very slightly, but if you compare todays number with same day last week, or this week with last week, then cases are down, all be it by only 3%, but down is down.
You may be big Rich, you may have taken on PBs collective agreement of Putin heading to defeat, but you can’t take on the Malmesbury Monoliths.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
What does that question mean? I don’t think it should continue in its current form (to survive it clearly needs to be less royal family centric), but what I mean by that could be completely different from someone else, and it’s likely neither of us wants to scrap it altogether.
It should be a collection of nations with their own heads of state working together
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
What does that question mean? I don’t think it should continue in its current form (to survive it clearly needs to be less royal family centric), but what I mean by that could be completely different from someone else, and it’s likely neither of us wants to scrap it altogether.
Quite. I'm entitled to conclude that 50% of Tories either want to abolish it outright or think it so unimportant it's not worth having an opinion on, and 75% of Labour voters think it is great and want an improved version. Or whatever else I can dream up.
Consider the last campaign. On anything like those numbers, Yes wins through with a positive message, vs. a dour, negative No campaign.
Yes lost by a 10% margin last time against an Alistair Darling led No for goodness sake.
For Yes to be on just 47% post Brexit is pathetic. Though of course the Tory government will continue to refuse indyref2 for a generation, the SNP will need Starmer as PM reliant on them to get one
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Wow. How does this compare with recent years? One thing that strikes me is possible (or rather probable) impact of "in current form" on responses.
I'm one Fenian who believes that Ireland should never have left the Commonwealth. And that it should rejoin at earliest opportunity. A belief I reckon would be shared (if they were with us today) of Charles Stewart Parnell, Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins AND Eamon de Valera to name but a few. Heck, maybe even Countess Marchevicz.
Of course I'm a pointy-headed liberal. As I also such dodgy constructs as the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America and the United Federation of Planets. In theory, and even occasionally in practice.
One of the best aspects of Queen Elizabeth II's long reign has been her leadership of the Commonwealth, through thick & thin.
Sad to the extent that Royal Family Feud has contributed to erosion of support
Over half the Commonwealth became Republics or got their own head of state IN the Queen's reign.
The British Empire too almost entirely ended in the reign of her and her father (apart from George IIIrd losing the American colonies and George Vth losing most of Ireland).
However to keep the Commonwealth it has to be an equal relationship not top down under the British monarch. The Queen has done a good job on that at least but going forward it's members must be equals for it to work not seen as a watered down British Empire under the British monarch. Hence William correctly stated he may not even be head of the Commonwealth when he becomes King
Not 'British'. UK. NI hasn't left yet.
British. Britain is synonymous with the UK. You are thinking of Great Britain. Though this distinction might be lost by current Tory spin which involves saying "UK" whenever they'd have previously said Britain in order to pretend Boris gives a damn what Northern Ireland's voters think.
No, I know the difference. Indeed your last point puts the finger on it; it is precisely why I am so sensitive to any Tory coming out with 'British'. Something dodgy there.
Consider the last campaign. On anything like those numbers, Yes wins through with a positive message, vs. a dour, negative No campaign.
Yes lost by a 10% margin last time against an Alistair Darling led No for goodness sake.
For Yes to be on just 47% post Brexit is pathetic. Though of course the Tory government will continue to refuse indyref2 for a generation, the SNP will need Starmer as PM reliant on them to get one
What is this, ****ing blue whale generations now??
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
You completely ignored the fact only 21% of Conservatives do not support the Commonwealth.
Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story.
Though of course the Commonwealth's continuation depends on the support of all its member nations not just the UK.
Hence too Prince William has suggested its symbolic head does not necessarily have to be him in future. It could for example be rotated between all the Commonwealth heads of state as well as the British monarch
'Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story'
This is a yougov poll and you do not get to choose which polls you like
I would think it is fairly accurate
That by a 29% margin Conservative voters support the Commonwealth yes.
Which you completely ignored by only posting half the poll figures!!!
Only 29% - that is some change and indicates it will not survive as the Monarch at its head
The Commonwealth does not need the monarch to always head it for goodness sake, even William said that.
Alternate its symbolic head amongst each Commonwealth head of state, just focus on the trade, sport and diplomatic and development links it provides
It is only a matter of time that Australia, New Zealand and Canada declare themselves republics
Absolutely not in Australia and in Canada neither as both Trudeau and the Tories are monarchists and every province has to approve a change near zero chance.
- Cases - UP. R is close to 1. - In hospital - UP - MV beds - UP - Admissions UP. R is reducing slowly. - Deaths - UP
Don't you mean cases does? only very slightly, but if you compare todays number with same day last week, or this week with last week, then cases are down, all be it by only 3%, but down is down.
You may be big Rich, you may have taken on PBs collective agreement of Putin heading to defeat, but you can’t take on the Malmesbury Monoliths.
That's right, like standing up in Wiltshire 4000 BC and saying what's all this Stonehenge stuff then?
I think we'll see a lot more of these and mined roads as the Russians start pulling back from entrenched positions towards* the Belarus and Russian borders. Ambushes and harrying actions.
- Cases - UP. R is close to 1. - In hospital - UP - MV beds - UP - Admissions UP. R is reducing slowly. - Deaths - UP
Don't you mean cases does? only very slightly, but if you compare todays number with same day last week, or this week with last week, then cases are down, all be it by only 3%, but down is down.
You may be big Rich, you may have taken on PBs collective agreement of Putin heading to defeat, but you can’t take on the Malmesbury Monoliths.
Consider the last campaign. On anything like those numbers, Yes wins through with a positive message, vs. a dour, negative No campaign.
There is every reason for no to fight a positive campaign
I don’t think I’ve seen a positive case made. In full disclosure I am English and would love the union to survive, but were I Scottish I think I’d vote Yes for similar reasons to why I voted to leave the EU. Sometimes it’s a matter of principle, and if enough Scots “feel” like an independent country and don’t “feel” British then the case is made.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
Hmm, there are various interpretations - I'm sure a Tory such has HYUFD, given his views on the mystic unity of the Anglo-Saxon [edit] former Dominions, has a different idea of the correct direction to take than, say, your Labour-voting student.
It might also be that immigrants from Commonwealth countries have a more favourable view than their descendants. It is hard to read too much into that poll. What does the question even mean?
Consider the last campaign. On anything like those numbers, Yes wins through with a positive message, vs. a dour, negative No campaign.
Yes lost by a 10% margin last time against an Alistair Darling led No for goodness sake.
For Yes to be on just 47% post Brexit is pathetic. Though of course the Tory government will continue to refuse indyref2 for a generation, the SNP will need Starmer as PM reliant on them to get one
What is this, ****ing blue whale generations now??
"Greenland sharks are now the longest-living vertebrates known on Earth, scientists say. Researchers used radiocarbon dating to determine the ages of 28 of the animals, and estimated that one female was about 400 years old."
Consider the last campaign. On anything like those numbers, Yes wins through with a positive message, vs. a dour, negative No campaign.
Yes lost by a 10% margin last time against an Alistair Darling led No for goodness sake.
For Yes to be on just 47% post Brexit is pathetic. Though of course the Tory government will continue to refuse indyref2 for a generation, the SNP will need Starmer as PM reliant on them to get one
I would have preferred it if the SNP bluff had been called in 2017 but we are where we are now and I think another referendum is very unlikely to happen this side of 2030. Absolute earliest it could happen is 2028 and there is also the danger SNP and the Greens lose their majority in 2026 and Labour even edges back into a distant 2nd place.
Only 50% of conservatives support the commonwealth
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives 42% pensioners 36% 50-64 yr-olds 34% all Brits 32% Liberal Democrats 30% 25-49 yr-olds 25% 18-24 yr olds 25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29 #CommonwealthDay
You completely ignored the fact only 21% of Conservatives do not support the Commonwealth.
Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story.
Though of course the Commonwealth's continuation depends on the support of all its member nations not just the UK.
Hence too Prince William has suggested its symbolic head does not necessarily have to be him in future. It could for example be rotated between all the Commonwealth heads of state as well as the British monarch
'Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story'
This is a yougov poll and you do not get to choose which polls you like
I would think it is fairly accurate
That by a 29% margin Conservative voters support the Commonwealth yes.
Which you completely ignored by only posting half the poll figures!!!
Only 29% - that is some change and indicates it will not survive as the Monarch at its head
The Commonwealth does not need the monarch to always head it for goodness sake, even William said that.
Alternate its symbolic head amongst each Commonwealth head of state, just focus on the trade, sport and diplomatic and development links it provides
It is only a matter of time that Australia, New Zealand and Canada declare themselves republics
Absolutely not in Australia and in Canada neither as both Trudeau and the Tories are monarchists and every province has to approve a change near zero chance.
- Cases - UP. R is close to 1. - In hospital - UP - MV beds - UP - Admissions UP. R is reducing slowly. - Deaths - UP
Don't you mean cases does? only very slightly, but if you compare todays number with same day last week, or this week with last week, then cases are down, all be it by only 3%, but down is down.
You may be big Rich, you may have taken on PBs collective agreement of Putin heading to defeat, but you can’t take on the Malmesbury Monoliths.
Yes! Even those PBers who detest (or at least deplore) Malmebury's politics respect his graphics!!
Even - or is it especially? - when we don't know what the heck they mean!!!
Lol, Hancock doing some serious BJ rslicking on C4 News. He's desperate to be back 'in government', and given the way things are going it wouldn't be the most unlikely outcome.
- Cases - UP. R is close to 1. - In hospital - UP - MV beds - UP - Admissions UP. R is reducing slowly. - Deaths - UP
Don't you mean cases does? only very slightly, but if you compare todays number with same day last week, or this week with last week, then cases are down, all be it by only 3%, but down is down.
You may be big Rich, you may have taken on PBs collective agreement of Putin heading to defeat, but you can’t take on the Malmesbury Monoliths.
Yes! Even those PBers who detest (or at least deplore) Malmebury's politics respect his graphics!!
Even - or is it especially? - when we don't know what the heck they mean!!!
And that’s why you can’t say they are wrong.
They have a Pavlov dog trigger with me, soon as I see them I start mixing cocktails.
- Cases - UP. R is close to 1. - In hospital - UP - MV beds - UP - Admissions UP. R is reducing slowly. - Deaths - UP
Don't you mean cases does? only very slightly, but if you compare todays number with same day last week, or this week with last week, then cases are down, all be it by only 3%, but down is down.
You may be big Rich, you may have taken on PBs collective agreement of Putin heading to defeat, but you can’t take on the Malmesbury Monoliths.
That's right, like standing up in Wiltshire 4000 BC and saying what's all this Stonehenge stuff then?
Bunch of rocks waiting for some future Victorian to sort it out?
Thus giving Leon a proper venue for flogging his . . . wait for it . . . wares!
Lol, Hancock doing some serious BJ rslicking on C4 News. He's desperate to be back 'in government', and given the way things are going it wouldn't be the most unlikely outcome.
Didn't hear it. Did he get past the 'Why are you talking about this stuff? Don't you know there's a war on?' line that has been reeled out by all the rest of them?
- Cases - UP. R is close to 1. - In hospital - UP - MV beds - UP - Admissions UP. R is reducing slowly. - Deaths - UP
Don't you mean cases does? only very slightly, but if you compare todays number with same day last week, or this week with last week, then cases are down, all be it by only 3%, but down is down.
You may be big Rich, you may have taken on PBs collective agreement of Putin heading to defeat, but you can’t take on the Malmesbury Monoliths.
Yes! Even those PBers who detest (or at least deplore) Malmebury's politics respect his graphics!!
Even - or is it especially? - when we don't know what the heck they mean!!!
And that’s why you can’t say they are wrong.
They have a Pavlov dog trigger with me, soon as I see them I start mixing cocktails.
If you only despise my politics, I'm doing it wrong.
The graphs are pretty simple - mostly about showing relative shifts in the data. What's going up and what's going down.
As to cases going up or down - so far, case R is still above 1. That data is delayed by a few days, but is considerably more reliable than comparing days over intervals...
- Cases - UP. R is close to 1. - In hospital - UP - MV beds - UP - Admissions UP. R is reducing slowly. - Deaths - UP
Don't you mean cases does? only very slightly, but if you compare todays number with same day last week, or this week with last week, then cases are down, all be it by only 3%, but down is down.
You may be big Rich, you may have taken on PBs collective agreement of Putin heading to defeat, but you can’t take on the Malmesbury Monoliths.
LOL
Don’t know why you are laughing. I have it 50/50 wether you survive questioning Putin’s imminent demise. PB has been raised by Dr Who, Babylon 5 and The Carry On films, where the bad guys always come a cropper.
Comments
If Schlumbeger & co were to enter those countries, then you could see a real ramp in production in both places on a five year view.
- Cases - UP. R is close to 1.
- In hospital - UP
- MV beds - UP
- Admissions UP. R is reducing slowly.
- Deaths - UP
But you can't simply ignore the astronomical losses of Russian kit that have taken place, and the destruction of some of Putin's finest troops.
Read my posts, and how they've evolved.
I started saying 'Well, obviously Russia will win, but holding a country that doesn't want to be held is very difficult'. Then it was 'Of course they can take KIev and Eastern Ukraine, but across the Dnieper and the West is a very different story'
Russia planned to take all of Ukraine. They failed.
They then planned to take Kiev and force regime change. They failed.
They are now looking to lock in the 2014 territorial gains, and maybe add a land bridge in the South.
They may achieve this. But if they do, it will be at enormous cost.
But, yes, I've had to revise my opinion of him. I'd had him down as essentially a hard-headed amoral gangster getting off on personal riches and power. However it appears there's some softhead ethno-nationalist delusions of grandeur in there too.
Do you think the Commonwealth should or should not continue in its current form?"
% should
50% Conservatives
42% pensioners
36% 50-64 yr-olds
34% all Brits
32% Liberal Democrats
30% 25-49 yr-olds
25% 18-24 yr olds
25% Labour voters
YouGov Mar 29
#CommonwealthDay
You can't even set the pieces.
The slight problems with that start with awkward questions that appeared in position papers from Frunze etc - those darned opponents might start thinking that just because you've used them, its ok for them to use them.
Then someone hits a not very battlefield target - according to you. A supply dump that is just a bit too far behind the lines maybe.
Or maybe it's yield is a tad higher than you'd like. Before you know it, the big weed wackers are in play and there are tears before bedtime....
What it comes down to, is that the Soviet Doctrine and what the generals think on the subject diverged. A lot.
Tend to agree strategist who said argued (in mid-March podcast) that Russian goal was Kyiv (im)pure and simple. And that attacks elsewhere were for purpose of pinning down Ukrainian military defending this turf instead of sending reinforcement to the capital.
https://mwi.usma.edu/what-will-the-battle-of-kyiv-look-like/
Which does NOT mean that they scorn taking, holding & keeping as much as they can, esp. in highly strategic areas. Just that such gains are incidentals - and bargaining chips.
In the final days & hours of Winter War in 1940, Mannerheim focused on keeping Soviets from capturing Viipuri. Not to hold it forever; indeed it's been Vyborg since the 1940s and part of Russia. But rather to give Finnish negotiators one big bargaining chip in order to limit the damage in the inevitable & soon-to-be peace agreement
Once he has it (if he has it), he has to keep it. And that means troops and equipment need to be there, and it's a drain on Russia's scarce resources.
In the case of Ukraine, I think a baseline 'win' would be having a sustainable, free and democratic state, that could choose to join the EU (and preferably NATO). Anything more: Donbass, Crimea, etc, would be a bigger win. A 'lose' would be being partially or fully under Russia's thumb.
For this reason, I think a substantive 'win' for Russia would be much harder to achieve every day this war continues. They've already lost a tremendous amount by the fact their military - a source of immense pride to them - has been shown to be rather poor. The 'losses' could easily build up.
I suspect that poll was worded deliberately as antiwokist clickbait.
Labour fizzing with idea’s to improve the commonwealth. 🤔
But the west in nether united or phatically resolute, we are supposedly sanctioning the nation that we are buying close to a billion euros of fuel of a day. with lots of companies still operating.
Russia is committing terrible war crimes, and when one leader criticises, then Macron gets on his 'high hours' and would rather crises the POTUSA than to day a rude word against Putin.
Putin commits genocide, on millions, but we would rather talk about one actor slapping one comedian in LA. Putin guest that we are not interested in standing up for freedom and on the would he was right.
Germany promises to spend 100 billion Euro on defence soon, but cant/won't give Ukraine the weapons it needs now. just 5 billion of Mig 29s, S-300s and more in the last 2 weeks could have saved themselves and the would so much.
The fighting is at a standstill and Putin holds the bits he really wants. He can now dictate a peace treaty, where the would we recognise his gains, and he will feel no obligation to keep his side of the barging when it no longer souts him.
He found Russia reduced.
He found Russia despised.
He left Russia enlarged.
He left Russia feared.
Not sure how it's going - not too well, perhaps - but I don't think he's much bothered by the casualties or the sanctions.
Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story.
Though of course the Commonwealth's continuation depends on the support of all its member nations not just the UK.
Hence too Prince William has suggested its symbolic head does not necessarily have to be him in future. It could for example be rotated between all the Commonwealth heads of state as well as the British monarch
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/arts/survey-results/daily/2022/03/29/44e67/3
And the likes of Oryx have played an oversized role in changing the minds of people like me - with an healthily skeptical interest in the overall battlefield situation but no access of raw data - about how the war is progressing. Chapeau to Oryx ...
In no way are Russia winning, in anything other than a completely superficial way.
'Don't post misleading poll data which only tells half the story'
This is a yougov poll and you do not get to choose which polls you like
I would think it is fairly accurate
Yes 47%
No 53%
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1504931601662291972?s=20&t=PyVrM_vCoHL-EXFVvGFjDQ
Which you completely ignored by only posting half the poll figures!!!
I'm one Fenian who believes that Ireland should never have left the Commonwealth. And that it should rejoin at earliest opportunity. A belief I reckon would be shared (if they were with us today) of Charles Stewart Parnell, Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins AND Eamon de Valera to name but a few. Heck, maybe even Countess Marchevicz.
Of course I'm a pointy-headed liberal. As I also such dodgy constructs as the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America and the United Federation of Planets. In theory, and even occasionally in practice.
One of the best aspects of Queen Elizabeth II's long reign has been her leadership of the Commonwealth, through thick & thin.
Sad to the extent that Royal Family Feud has contributed to erosion of support
UK (Scotland), Savanta ComRes poll:
Independence referendum
Yes: 47% (-2)
No: 53% (+2)
+/- vs. 24-28 Feb
Fieldwork: 10-16 March 2022
The British Empire too almost entirely ended in the reign of her and her father (apart from George IIIrd losing the American colonies and George Vth losing most of Ireland).
However to keep the Commonwealth it has to be an equal relationship not top down under the British monarch. The Queen has done a good job on the Commonwealth at least and for the UK but going forward its members must be equals for it to work not seen as a watered down British Empire under the British monarch. Hence William correctly stated he may not even be head of the Commonwealth when he becomes King
Let me sell you a dream. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is this idea of commonwealth of Nations already bringing us closer together. Holding us together. A commonwealth to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we will seek one another, seek each other out to thrawt our lonerism, where we know lies the truth of all our weaknesses, in our aloneness - so we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our Commonwealth is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. Where we can live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. Because you cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. When we are Venturing forth together into unknown territory, every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, by our love and our faith. The commonwealth, what is my wealth is yours, let’s all hearts join with ours as one - it’s never been more relevant.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/labour-people-tories-conservatives-government-b991228.html
Alternate its symbolic head amongst each Commonwealth head of state, just focus on the trade, sport and diplomatic and development links it provides
And for me, that time has come. I don't care if it puts noses out of joint, or irritates *certain people* on this forum
The fact is, this IS getting utterly ridiculous. We all know it, yet it takes someone to say it. And I have just said it
https://jamaica-gleaner.com/search?cx=partner-pub-4993191856924332:98b6e2-dgz1&cof=FORID:10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q_as=royal+tour&sa=Search&siteurl=jamaica-gleaner.com/&ref=jamaica-gleaner.com&ss=
The hosts of the visit are NOT who I was criticizing, rather the Palace managers & "tourists"
Hard to argue that Force Z getting bogged down then doubling down is evidence for their strategic planing, one way or another.
Just that they were fooling not just Putin, but themselves.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3168917/coronavirus-us-consulate-issues-travel-alert
For Yes to be on just 47% post Brexit is pathetic. Though of course the Tory government will continue to refuse indyref2 for a generation, the SNP will need Starmer as PM reliant on them to get one
https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1508633756915183617?s=20&t=AtaR4vYHzGGmasTYmpNhww
This is going to be a long evening 🙈
https://amp.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html
Though your persistent republican sniping shows full well why the Tories really don't need you
PS * i.e. along predictable routes towards ...
Lady Thatcher had a Willy.
And I’ve been out on my balcony trimming my little bush.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37047168
"Greenland sharks are now the longest-living vertebrates known on Earth, scientists say. Researchers used radiocarbon dating to determine the ages of 28 of the animals, and estimated that one female was about 400 years old."
Even - or is it especially? - when we don't know what the heck they mean!!!
He's desperate to be back 'in government', and given the way things are going it wouldn't be the most unlikely outcome.
They have a Pavlov dog trigger with me, soon as I see them I start mixing cocktails.
@townhallcom
Former Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta:
Biden made comments that the White House needed to walk back because "Joe Biden, you know, is Irish."
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1508803265638641671
Thus giving Leon a proper venue for flogging his . . . wait for it . . . wares!
The graphs are pretty simple - mostly about showing relative shifts in the data. What's going up and what's going down.
As to cases going up or down - so far, case R is still above 1. That data is delayed by a few days, but is considerably more reliable than comparing days over intervals...