Hopefully that means he will start scoring even more runs.
Would be funny if they appointed Stuart Broad captain in his place...
They could do worse than Broad. Probably will!
Well, the problem they have is the lack of alternatives. Burns is unlikely to play for England again, as is Buttler. Lees has played three tests without convincing anyone save Jonathan Agnew, who is an idiot, and when he captained the England lions failed twice with the bat. Lawrence and Crawley are both too young. Foakes might be a possible but there are several other wicketkeepers eyeing up the berth. No spinner is guaranteed a game.
That leaves Root (resigned) Stokes (very reluctant) Bairstow (no captaincy experience) and Broad as guaranteed starters (yes, he is, even the ECB realise they made a mistake there) who might just be in the frame.
Actually, I think Broad would be a good choice as he would kick arse, which is what they need, plus he would only be there a short time and succession planning could be part of his brief.
But yes you're right they probably will do worse. My personal fear is they will recall Buttler and give him the captaincy.
Stokes would be fine. Bairstow doesnt make much sense to me.
Time to find some more Aussies or Saffers with dual nationality.....
Stokes would be fine *if he could cope*.
The other option, which would be truly left field, would be to recall James Vince, but surely even England aren't stupid enough to do that.
Stokes isn't a captain. He's a leader.Once more into the breach and all that.
TBH I'm not that impressed by any of the County Captains so far this season, but it's very early days. And no, I'm not putting forward Essex' captain, Westley.
An “emergency decision” to fund the £400,000 repair of a private road at risk of slipping into a beck was made behind closed doors at City of York Council.
Springfield Close, in the ward of Heworth Without, is a private, unadopted street accessible to the public and the collapse of its supporting wall could lead to flooding downstream, according to City of York Council.
The council’s policy is not to maintain private roads. But a senior council officer last week gave the go-ahead for the authority to pay for its repair.
Corporate director of place, Neil Ferris, said the council did not want residents living on private roads elsewhere in the city to think they could rely on similar treatment.
But York Labour have criticised the move and implied the decision was a “special case” because it is in ruling councillor Nigel Ayre’s ward.
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
BTW, I still think it's easily possible that Russia gets a tactical victory and takes over the eastern half of Ukraine, or even the entirety. It is getting less likely as time goes on, but is possible.
But IMO that would only be a tactical, not a strategic victory, as it will do immense damage to the Russia militarily, politically and economically.
I fear it is increasingly likely that Russia, in its expanding humiliation, will resort to tactical nukes
I’m not sure what other options are left
I share your fear but what's to stop Putin continuing to lay waste to Ukraine infrastructure with conventional weapons?
Also, wouldn't chemical weapons an option for him, less likely to provoke a NATO reaction, if he wants to escalate?
I’m genuinely unsure Russia has the military capacity to subdue even eastern Ukraine. It has lost ~20,000 soldiers, vast armies of tanks, and now its finest warship
Ukraine has turned out to be very different to Syria or Chechnya. It is a catastrophe. And Ukraine is being constantly resupplied with superior western weapons
Putin is facing humiliation near the end of his life. An old man in a hurry. I can see him reaching for the red button. Chemical weapons won’t have the dramatic effect he requires. Hope I’m wrong
It is becoming 1905.
But this time, as you say, the regime has nukes.
I believe the target endgame has to be the de-nuclearisation of Russia.
No idea how that can be achieved. Presumably it would require a complete collapse of the Russian state and an agreement between China and the US, potentially with the US agreeing to drastically reduce its number of warheads.
There is something too about how can we protect from a future rogue madman dictator in charge of a nuclear armed country (including potentially the US or China)?
[1.] Collapse of the Soviet Union didn't lead to getting rid of nukes, though there were reductions, nor would collapse of Russia. [2.] Not sure the USA would be interested in reducing as a quid pro quo.
1. It didn't... but it could have. The collapse of Germany after WW1 didn't lead to a de-militarisation; the lessons were learnt after WW2. 2. I can't see why not - the costs of maintaining the current numbers must be very high.
There is no interest in total nuclear disarmament in America. There won’t be unless you could guarantee a 99% proof defence against nukes. Which you can’t.
The current number of strategic warheads there is heading towards certain lower limits. Essentially if an adversary gets in a brilliant sneak attack, do you have enough left….
It is Russia’s actions that have killed off any extension non-proliferation. And will make any future rulers of Russian cling to their nukes like grim death. Without nukes, they will be thinking of an alliance between Ukraine and Eastern Europe, angry and waiting…..
BTW, I still think it's easily possible that Russia gets a tactical victory and takes over the eastern half of Ukraine, or even the entirety. It is getting less likely as time goes on, but is possible.
But IMO that would only be a tactical, not a strategic victory, as it will do immense damage to the Russia militarily, politically and economically.
Seems probable to me the east and south could still fall. Still worried at the capability of Ukraine to go on the offensive especially if Russia takes a scorched earth approach to defense. But things are at least more positive than they were.
What would be the economic effect of Ukraine losing the Donbass area?
No idea. It had already lost the largest cities of those areas 8 years ago, so presumably less effect now than then even if more lost.
M thought, too. So 'abandoning them to save Putin's face would cost little? Apart from Zelensky's 'face' of course.
You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
The "China will just walk in and take over Taiwan in 7 hours" thought line has taken a real hammering this conflict.
Not just the military aspects.
Analysts have been noting how taken aback the CCP powers-that-be have been by the western economic response, especially the voluntary aspects from private companies who have walked from Ru.
Is gaining Taiwan worth the economic collapse that would surely severely jeopardise their regime? Unlike Ru, China is holding to one party rule because it seems to work economically in that millions have become rich and middle class.
Yes, that's right. I can't see the slightest net benefit for China in invading Taiwan and I don't think they've seriously contemplated it for a long time. I hesitate to be dogmatic about how bonkers it would be as I though Putin was just willy-waving and he wan't, but has there actually been any Chinese declaration of intent to take over ("liberate") Taiwan in the last 20 years?
There was a speech in 2019 where he said "we should not allow this problem to be passed down from one generation to the next", which is pretty much exactly what Putin has been saying about Ukraine, and "we make no promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option of taking all necessary means". An invasion would be way they're going to get Taiwan back since they blew up "One Country Two Systems" in Hong Kong. So the position kind of is that they're going to invade.
I don't know enough about war to say what would happen if they tried, and seeing how people thought Ukraine would turn out compared to how it actually turned out has to make you suspicious of people who think they can predict what's going to happen in war. I expect Xi is better informed and more circumspect than Putin, but I can't say that for sure, and nobody really knows what's in his head.
This is what my daughter and I have both been suffering from for the last 6 months or so. My daughter is now just about back to normal but for me it is still very severe. Red wine, coffee, anything with mint. All are absolutely foul and at there is a constant taste of rancid butter 24/7.
judging by my daughters progress I have another 2 or so months to go. Its bloody depressing sometimes especially when I am such a foodie.
My taste never went like that with the Omicron but I can relate a little bit in that I lost my sense of smell completely and I found it weird and also quite a downer. You don't realize how much it contributes until you don't have it. It made me feel disconnected from my surroundings.
Was worried too, since I read it can sometimes take months to normalize. But anyway, it didn't thankfully. It did take 4 weeks though. The great day was this Wed just gone. I farted in the bath and the aroma came through sweet and clear. That was the final piece in the puzzle for me. The last remaining symptom. Goodbye Covid, it was *not* nice meeting you.
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
If the French would allow it, I'd prefer a British Immigration office in either Calais or Dunkirk.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
Why is that relevant?
Because even I know that, as of yesterday morning, because it seems like important background to what we propose to do, and I am not the government minister responsible for the proposal. Like Truss not bothering to have a quick look at Ukraine on google maps before going to Moscow
Not really. The policy should be judged on (a) is it ethical; (b) will it be effective; (c) is it cost effective; (d) can it be implemented in a timely manner; and (e) are the implementation risks acceptable.
The average age of a Rwandan giraffe is not a relevant statistic. It’s garbage gotcha questions from a media who missed the opportunity to ask intelligent questions that actually matter.
"Tories set to lose 800 council seats – and Sir Keir Starmer on course to be PM in 2024 Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now forecast five per cent swing from Tories to Labour at local elections"
Isn't there a chance that the PM could lose his seat in an GE on figures like that? Have there been any whispers about him moving to a safer one?
It's another reason for Boris to depart next year. Losing an 80 seat majority to dreadfully dreary Starmer would be bad enough. Losing his seat too, in a Portillo moment of national rejoicing, would haunt him for decades....
No British Prime Minister has ever lost his seat at a General Election. Not one. The closest anyone has come are Balfour in 1906 and Macdonald in 1935, who had both been PM a few months before (one for Balfour, six for MacDonald).
For Johnson to lose his seat a la John Howard would be an epochal humiliation that would far dwarf any Portillo moment.
That is more a factor of how safe their seat is. Major's Huntingdon had a massive majority in 1992 for example but he won a smaller majority than Boris did in 2019 but with Boris' Uxbridge seat having a smaller majority.
As for John Howard he also won 4 general elections before he lost his seat and the election in 2007 and is still the second longest serving Australian PM since WW2
I didn't know Major stood in Huntingdon in 2019.
To an extent you're right about the safeness of the seats, and that's partly because promising politicians in marginal seats are usually transferred to safer ones so they don't get booted from the House of Commons, which until Johnson made his name as London mayor was the only way of gaining executive power. And, of course, around half of British Prime Ministers have been peers, which skews the figures.
But it would still be a calamitous result for Johnson, especially as he claims to be the man who wins every vote he contests.
Didn't Johnson lose one of his Oxford student contest. And the first time he stood for Parliament, in N Wales.
Johnson won the Presidency of the Oxford Union as the SDP backed candidate in the Thatcher years
This is what my daughter and I have both been suffering from for the last 6 months or so. My daughter is now just about back to normal but for me it is still very severe. Red wine, coffee, anything with mint. All are absolutely foul and at there is a constant taste of rancid butter 24/7.
judging by my daughters progress I have another 2 or so months to go. Its bloody depressing sometimes especially when I am such a foodie.
"Tories set to lose 800 council seats – and Sir Keir Starmer on course to be PM in 2024 Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now forecast five per cent swing from Tories to Labour at local elections"
Isn't there a chance that the PM could lose his seat in an GE on figures like that? Have there been any whispers about him moving to a safer one?
It's another reason for Boris to depart next year. Losing an 80 seat majority to dreadfully dreary Starmer would be bad enough. Losing his seat too, in a Portillo moment of national rejoicing, would haunt him for decades....
No British Prime Minister has ever lost his seat at a General Election. Not one. The closest anyone has come are Balfour in 1906 and Macdonald in 1935, who had both been PM a few months before (one for Balfour, six for MacDonald).
For Johnson to lose his seat a la John Howard would be an epochal humiliation that would far dwarf any Portillo moment.
That is more a factor of how safe their seat is. Major's Huntingdon had a massive majority in 1992 for example but he won a smaller majority than Boris did in 2019 but with Boris' Uxbridge seat having a smaller majority.
As for John Howard he also won 4 general elections before he lost his seat and the election in 2007 and is still the second longest serving Australian PM since WW2
I didn't know Major stood in Huntingdon in 2019.
To an extent you're right about the safeness of the seats, and that's partly because promising politicians in marginal seats are usually transferred to safer ones so they don't get booted from the House of Commons, which until Johnson made his name as London mayor was the only way of gaining executive power. And, of course, around half of British Prime Ministers have been peers, which skews the figures.
But it would still be a calamitous result for Johnson, especially as he claims to be the man who wins every vote he contests.
Didn't Johnson lose one of his Oxford student contest. And the first time he stood for Parliament, in N Wales.
Johnson won the Presidency of the Oxford Union as the SDP backed candidate in the Thatcher years
Some years ago, there was an elderly lady who lived in the Park Lane area, who took a very miniature horse for walks in Hyde Park. It was literally 2 foot tall. Looked exactly like a horse - not a miniature pony or something.
I saw it fairly close up - she’d ever had miniature horse tac made up, so it was on a lead rein.
There used to be a lady who would walk her pet ocelot in Hyde Park. Probably illegal nowadays because of the rules on keeping exotic pets, but I'm told it looked happy enough.
The miniature horse I saw seemed happy - shiny coat, head up and interested in the world around it.
This is what my daughter and I have both been suffering from for the last 6 months or so. My daughter is now just about back to normal but for me it is still very severe. Red wine, coffee, anything with mint. All are absolutely foul and at there is a constant taste of rancid butter 24/7.
judging by my daughters progress I have another 2 or so months to go. Its bloody depressing sometimes especially when I am such a foodie.
My taste never went like that with the Omicron but I can relate a little bit in that I lost my sense of smell completely and I found it weird and also quite a downer. You don't realize how much it contributes until you don't have it. It made me feel disconnected from my surroundings.
Was worried too, since I read it can sometimes take months to normalize. But anyway, it didn't thankfully. It did take 4 weeks though. The great day was this Wed just gone. I farted in the bath and the aroma came through sweet and clear. That was the final piece in the puzzle for me. The last remaining symptom. Goodbye Covid, it was *not* nice meeting you.
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
I don't see anything you could call encouragement in anything he said
Merely cranking up penalties is ineffective anyway, look how people kept on stealing loaves of bread and poaching rabbits when those things got you transported to Australia, because they thought the penalty was irrelevant because they wouldn't get caught. There won't be a cranking up of detection because that costs money and this is just a half-arsed gimmick, people will know that people are still getting through because they'll get a whatsapp, so it will make bugger all difference
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
Again: what is your alternative?
Rwanda seems insane, until you consider all the other possible solutions, from Sink all the boats, to Let them all in
Encourage illegal workers to shop their employers (via the offer of a work-to-citizenship route)
My suggestion was they get 50% of an increased fine. There is a substantial fine for employing the undocumented already.
@rcs1000 was suggesting just a work permit for their testimony. Apparently in Switzerland, people were employing the undocumented as domestic servants, when this was bought in. Overnight this stopped.
The advantage of the fine is that, overnight, the employers attitude will go from “ha ha I can treat these people any way I feel like” to “oh shit, they are going to fuck me”
If you eliminate the demand pull, then it's amazing how quickly illegal immigration can be stopped.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
Why is that relevant?
The Immigration Minister's complete ignorance about Rwanda suggests: first, a lack of serious policy-making; second, not even the brains to glance at the Wikipedia page while waiting to be interviewed about sending people there.
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
They're coming here not for the attractions of being stuck in a house that nobody wants because of massive crime to not be able to work and to subsist off non-cash vouchers for food. They're coming here to disappear into the black economy and work illegally.
Want to stop the boats? Go after the scum employers. Stop illegal labour, and you stop the boats.
"Tories set to lose 800 council seats – and Sir Keir Starmer on course to be PM in 2024 Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now forecast five per cent swing from Tories to Labour at local elections"
Isn't there a chance that the PM could lose his seat in an GE on figures like that? Have there been any whispers about him moving to a safer one?
It's another reason for Boris to depart next year. Losing an 80 seat majority to dreadfully dreary Starmer would be bad enough. Losing his seat too, in a Portillo moment of national rejoicing, would haunt him for decades....
No British Prime Minister has ever lost his seat at a General Election. Not one. The closest anyone has come are Balfour in 1906 and Macdonald in 1935, who had both been PM a few months before (one for Balfour, six for MacDonald).
For Johnson to lose his seat a la John Howard would be an epochal humiliation that would far dwarf any Portillo moment.
That is more a factor of how safe their seat is. Major's Huntingdon had a massive majority in 1992 for example but he won a smaller majority than Boris did in 2019 but with Boris' Uxbridge seat having a smaller majority.
As for John Howard he also won 4 general elections before he lost his seat and the election in 2007 and is still the second longest serving Australian PM since WW2
I didn't know Major stood in Huntingdon in 2019.
To an extent you're right about the safeness of the seats, and that's partly because promising politicians in marginal seats are usually transferred to safer ones so they don't get booted from the House of Commons, which until Johnson made his name as London mayor was the only way of gaining executive power. And, of course, around half of British Prime Ministers have been peers, which skews the figures.
But it would still be a calamitous result for Johnson, especially as he claims to be the man who wins every vote he contests.
Didn't Johnson lose one of his Oxford student contest. And the first time he stood for Parliament, in N Wales.
Johnson won the Presidency of the Oxford Union as the SDP backed candidate in the Thatcher years
I thought that was the second time that he tried. Does anyone know; I confess I can't be bothered to wade through his Wikipedia entry.
You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
The "China will just walk in and take over Taiwan in 7 hours" thought line has taken a real hammering this conflict.
Not just the military aspects.
Analysts have been noting how taken aback the CCP powers-that-be have been by the western economic response, especially the voluntary aspects from private companies who have walked from Ru.
Is gaining Taiwan worth the economic collapse that would surely severely jeopardise their regime? Unlike Ru, China is holding to one party rule because it seems to work economically in that millions have become rich and middle class.
Yes, that's right. I can't see the slightest net benefit for China in invading Taiwan and I don't think they've seriously contemplated it for a long time. I hesitate to be dogmatic about how bonkers it would be as I though Putin was just willy-waving and he wan't, but has there actually been any Chinese declaration of intent to take over ("liberate") Taiwan in the last 20 years?
There was a speech in 2019 where he said "we should not allow this problem to be passed down from one generation to the next", which is pretty much exactly what Putin has been saying about Ukraine, and "we make no promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option of taking all necessary means". An invasion would be way they're going to get Taiwan back since they blew up "One Country Two Systems" in Hong Kong. So the position kind of is that they're going to invade.
I don't know enough about war to say what would happen if they tried, and seeing how people thought Ukraine would turn out compared to how it actually turned out has to make you suspicious of people who think they can predict what's going to happen in war. I expect Xi is better informed and more circumspect than Putin, but I can't say that for sure, and nobody really knows what's in his head.
On the other hand, invading over 100 miles of open ocean that has a dozen Taiwanese submarines in is not for the faint of heart.
And you can't really mount a surprise invasion - this would be like D-Day, but over a much wider body of water and where the defenders have satellite imagery.
On the subject of the Gotchva... It is interesting that in the most photographed and videoed war in history we don't have a single image of it in its damaged state. Did it all happen at night?
This is not conspiracy theory bullshit. I don't believe its secretly docked at Woolwich Ferry Terminal being controlled by Walt Disney's embalmed head.
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You are missing the point. They have no intention of the policy working in terms of "solving" migrant crossings. Migrant crossings win Boris votes, why would they want to stop it happening? Far better to let it continue, but have their doomed efforts blocked by the system, courts and liberals, whilst getting the PR and culture war headlines they need.
Yes, of course I know that. But I think there could come a point when people start to say 'hang on a minute, they've been promising for years that they will put an end to migrant crossings, and they just haven't done it - they can't blame activist judges etc. for ever - it's a failure of government policy'.
An “emergency decision” to fund the £400,000 repair of a private road at risk of slipping into a beck was made behind closed doors at City of York Council.
Springfield Close, in the ward of Heworth Without, is a private, unadopted street accessible to the public and the collapse of its supporting wall could lead to flooding downstream, according to City of York Council.
The council’s policy is not to maintain private roads. But a senior council officer last week gave the go-ahead for the authority to pay for its repair.
Corporate director of place, Neil Ferris, said the council did not want residents living on private roads elsewhere in the city to think they could rely on similar treatment.
But York Labour have criticised the move and implied the decision was a “special case” because it is in ruling councillor Nigel Ayre’s ward.
You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
The "China will just walk in and take over Taiwan in 7 hours" thought line has taken a real hammering this conflict.
Not just the military aspects.
Analysts have been noting how taken aback the CCP powers-that-be have been by the western economic response, especially the voluntary aspects from private companies who have walked from Ru.
Is gaining Taiwan worth the economic collapse that would surely severely jeopardise their regime? Unlike Ru, China is holding to one party rule because it seems to work economically in that millions have become rich and middle class.
Yes, that's right. I can't see the slightest net benefit for China in invading Taiwan and I don't think they've seriously contemplated it for a long time. I hesitate to be dogmatic about how bonkers it would be as I though Putin was just willy-waving and he wan't, but has there actually been any Chinese declaration of intent to take over ("liberate") Taiwan in the last 20 years?
There was a speech in 2019 where he said "we should not allow this problem to be passed down from one generation to the next", which is pretty much exactly what Putin has been saying about Ukraine, and "we make no promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option of taking all necessary means". An invasion would be way they're going to get Taiwan back since they blew up "One Country Two Systems" in Hong Kong. So the position kind of is that they're going to invade.
I don't know enough about war to say what would happen if they tried, and seeing how people thought Ukraine would turn out compared to how it actually turned out has to make you suspicious of people who think they can predict what's going to happen in war. I expect Xi is better informed and more circumspect than Putin, but I can't say that for sure, and nobody really knows what's in his head.
On the other hand, invading over 100 miles of open ocean that has a dozen Taiwanese submarines in is not for the faint of heart.
And you can't really mount a surprise invasion - this would be like D-Day, but over a much wider body of water and where the defenders have satellite imagery.
Edit to add: and the Taiwanese military is not lacking in Western kit: they have significant numbers of the latest generation of F16s and Dassaults.
You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
The "China will just walk in and take over Taiwan in 7 hours" thought line has taken a real hammering this conflict.
Not just the military aspects.
Analysts have been noting how taken aback the CCP powers-that-be have been by the western economic response, especially the voluntary aspects from private companies who have walked from Ru.
Is gaining Taiwan worth the economic collapse that would surely severely jeopardise their regime? Unlike Ru, China is holding to one party rule because it seems to work economically in that millions have become rich and middle class.
Yes, that's right. I can't see the slightest net benefit for China in invading Taiwan and I don't think they've seriously contemplated it for a long time. I hesitate to be dogmatic about how bonkers it would be as I though Putin was just willy-waving and he wan't, but has there actually been any Chinese declaration of intent to take over ("liberate") Taiwan in the last 20 years?
There was a speech in 2019 where he said "we should not allow this problem to be passed down from one generation to the next", which is pretty much exactly what Putin has been saying about Ukraine, and "we make no promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option of taking all necessary means". An invasion would be way they're going to get Taiwan back since they blew up "One Country Two Systems" in Hong Kong. So the position kind of is that they're going to invade.
I don't know enough about war to say what would happen if they tried, and seeing how people thought Ukraine would turn out compared to how it actually turned out has to make you suspicious of people who think they can predict what's going to happen in war. I expect Xi is better informed and more circumspect than Putin, but I can't say that for sure, and nobody really knows what's in his head.
On the other hand, invading over 100 miles of open ocean that has a dozen Taiwanese submarines in is not for the faint of heart.
And you can't really mount a surprise invasion - this would be like D-Day, but over a much wider body of water and where the defenders have satellite imagery.
It's the original/genuine Taiwanese that I feel sorry for!
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
Why is that relevant?
Because even I know that, as of yesterday morning, because it seems like important background to what we propose to do, and I am not the government minister responsible for the proposal. Like Truss not bothering to have a quick look at Ukraine on google maps before going to Moscow
Not really. The policy should be judged on (a) is it ethical; (b) will it be effective; (c) is it cost effective; (d) can it be implemented in a timely manner; and (e) are the implementation risks acceptable.
The average age of a Rwandan giraffe is not a relevant statistic. It’s garbage gotcha questions from a media who missed the opportunity to ask intelligent questions that actually matter.
Absolute poverty rate of over 90%, pop density greater than the Netherlands, median age 20 years, all seem to me to a bit relevant to the ethics of the proposal
On the subject of the Gotchva... It is interesting that in the most photographed and videoed war in history we don't have a single image of it in its damaged state. Did it all happen at night?
This is not conspiracy theory bullshit. I don't believe its secretly docked at Woolwich Ferry Terminal being controlled by Walt Disney's embalmed head.
I assume the only images we have of it are satellite and noone has leaked/released those yet for operational reasons. I assume it wasn't in sight of shore.
"Tories set to lose 800 council seats – and Sir Keir Starmer on course to be PM in 2024 Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now forecast five per cent swing from Tories to Labour at local elections"
Isn't there a chance that the PM could lose his seat in an GE on figures like that? Have there been any whispers about him moving to a safer one?
It's another reason for Boris to depart next year. Losing an 80 seat majority to dreadfully dreary Starmer would be bad enough. Losing his seat too, in a Portillo moment of national rejoicing, would haunt him for decades....
No British Prime Minister has ever lost his seat at a General Election. Not one. The closest anyone has come are Balfour in 1906 and Macdonald in 1935, who had both been PM a few months before (one for Balfour, six for MacDonald).
For Johnson to lose his seat a la John Howard would be an epochal humiliation that would far dwarf any Portillo moment.
That is more a factor of how safe their seat is. Major's Huntingdon had a massive majority in 1992 for example but he won a smaller majority than Boris did in 2019 but with Boris' Uxbridge seat having a smaller majority.
As for John Howard he also won 4 general elections before he lost his seat and the election in 2007 and is still the second longest serving Australian PM since WW2
I didn't know Major stood in Huntingdon in 2019.
To an extent you're right about the safeness of the seats, and that's partly because promising politicians in marginal seats are usually transferred to safer ones so they don't get booted from the House of Commons, which until Johnson made his name as London mayor was the only way of gaining executive power. And, of course, around half of British Prime Ministers have been peers, which skews the figures.
But it would still be a calamitous result for Johnson, especially as he claims to be the man who wins every vote he contests.
Didn't Johnson lose one of his Oxford student contest. And the first time he stood for Parliament, in N Wales.
Johnson won the Presidency of the Oxford Union as the SDP backed candidate in the Thatcher years
I thought that was the second time that he tried. Does anyone know; I confess I can't be bothered to wade through his Wikipedia entry.
2 accounts here one from Toby Young.
Boris lost on his first attempt when he was the High Tory candidate to a state educated candidate who went on to be an adviser to Nick Clegg.
However he won on his second attempt, this time with the backing of the largely SDP Limehouse group against the Australian son of a multi millionaire
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
Where did I say that? I prefer a humanitarian, sensible, well-managed refugee policy that respects other human beings and provides well-organised routes for genuine asylum seekers. I also prefer a system whereby asylum applications are processed in weeks rather than months or years.
"Tories set to lose 800 council seats – and Sir Keir Starmer on course to be PM in 2024 Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now forecast five per cent swing from Tories to Labour at local elections"
Isn't there a chance that the PM could lose his seat in an GE on figures like that? Have there been any whispers about him moving to a safer one?
It's another reason for Boris to depart next year. Losing an 80 seat majority to dreadfully dreary Starmer would be bad enough. Losing his seat too, in a Portillo moment of national rejoicing, would haunt him for decades....
No British Prime Minister has ever lost his seat at a General Election. Not one. The closest anyone has come are Balfour in 1906 and Macdonald in 1935, who had both been PM a few months before (one for Balfour, six for MacDonald).
For Johnson to lose his seat a la John Howard would be an epochal humiliation that would far dwarf any Portillo moment.
That is more a factor of how safe their seat is. Major's Huntingdon had a massive majority in 1992 for example but he won a smaller majority than Boris did in 2019 but with Boris' Uxbridge seat having a smaller majority.
As for John Howard he also won 4 general elections before he lost his seat and the election in 2007 and is still the second longest serving Australian PM since WW2
I didn't know Major stood in Huntingdon in 2019.
To an extent you're right about the safeness of the seats, and that's partly because promising politicians in marginal seats are usually transferred to safer ones so they don't get booted from the House of Commons, which until Johnson made his name as London mayor was the only way of gaining executive power. And, of course, around half of British Prime Ministers have been peers, which skews the figures.
But it would still be a calamitous result for Johnson, especially as he claims to be the man who wins every vote he contests.
Didn't Johnson lose one of his Oxford student contest. And the first time he stood for Parliament, in N Wales.
Johnson won the Presidency of the Oxford Union as the SDP backed candidate in the Thatcher years
I thought that was the second time that he tried. Does anyone know; I confess I can't be bothered to wade through his Wikipedia entry.
Yes, Boris lost as a straight Conservative on first attempt so allowed it to be thought he was SDP-friendly. It is covered in When Boris Met Dave, in which Boris's duplicity was condemned by Frank Luntz, the US Republican polling guru. Worth watching if you've not seen it.
You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
The "China will just walk in and take over Taiwan in 7 hours" thought line has taken a real hammering this conflict.
Not just the military aspects.
Analysts have been noting how taken aback the CCP powers-that-be have been by the western economic response, especially the voluntary aspects from private companies who have walked from Ru.
Is gaining Taiwan worth the economic collapse that would surely severely jeopardise their regime? Unlike Ru, China is holding to one party rule because it seems to work economically in that millions have become rich and middle class.
Yes, that's right. I can't see the slightest net benefit for China in invading Taiwan and I don't think they've seriously contemplated it for a long time. I hesitate to be dogmatic about how bonkers it would be as I though Putin was just willy-waving and he wan't, but has there actually been any Chinese declaration of intent to take over ("liberate") Taiwan in the last 20 years?
Xi Jingping has said that “reunification” “must be fulfilled” and has not ruled out the use of force…
Some years ago, there was an elderly lady who lived in the Park Lane area, who took a very miniature horse for walks in Hyde Park. It was literally 2 foot tall. Looked exactly like a horse - not a miniature pony or something.
I saw it fairly close up - she’d ever had miniature horse tac made up, so it was on a lead rein.
Thirty or more years ago, a gentleman in full military regalia would ride his horse into Derby to go to the bank (now the Standing Order pub). I think it was every Thursday morning. I was only a child, and he looked so splendid that I was quite in awe of him.
And a couple of weeks ago, I saw a woman in a mobility chair taking a small horse for a walk through a neighbouring village. It was such a small horse that at first I thought it was a very large dog, and only realised it was a horse as I got nearer. So much for my taxonomy skills ...
I’ve checked out of my apartment - and left it very clean and tidy - then walked to the train station to make sure all the trains were running on Good Friday. Having confirmed they were, I booked a room in a reasonable looking hotel at the other end for only 45€ (not at all bad for Easter weekend), then used the machine to buy my train ticket.
My gast is now flabbered. It’s a one hour train ride and the ticket cost me ONE EURO!
I’m now off to find somewhere for a beer or two in the couple of hours before it leaves.
BTW, I still think it's easily possible that Russia gets a tactical victory and takes over the eastern half of Ukraine, or even the entirety. It is getting less likely as time goes on, but is possible.
But IMO that would only be a tactical, not a strategic victory, as it will do immense damage to the Russia militarily, politically and economically.
Seems probable to me the east and south could still fall. Still worried at the capability of Ukraine to go on the offensive especially if Russia takes a scorched earth approach to defense. But things are at least more positive than they were.
What would be the economic effect of Ukraine losing the Donbass area?
No idea. It had already lost the largest cities of those areas 8 years ago, so presumably less effect now than then even if more lost.
M thought, too. So 'abandoning them to save Putin's face would cost little? Apart from Zelensky's 'face' of course.
And extinguishing the freedom of millions while legitimising Putin’s aggression
On the subject of the Gotchva... It is interesting that in the most photographed and videoed war in history we don't have a single image of it in its damaged state. Did it all happen at night?
This is not conspiracy theory bullshit. I don't believe its secretly docked at Woolwich Ferry Terminal being controlled by Walt Disney's embalmed head.
Website was first on Google so don’t know if legit
The Russian defence ministry has stated that a fire on board reached the munitions, and that the ship sank under tow. But they got all (most?) of the crew off.
So that gives us the minimalist position.
Something like HMS Audacious - heavy damage followed by slow, progressive flooding.
"Tories set to lose 800 council seats – and Sir Keir Starmer on course to be PM in 2024 Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now forecast five per cent swing from Tories to Labour at local elections"
Isn't there a chance that the PM could lose his seat in an GE on figures like that? Have there been any whispers about him moving to a safer one?
It's another reason for Boris to depart next year. Losing an 80 seat majority to dreadfully dreary Starmer would be bad enough. Losing his seat too, in a Portillo moment of national rejoicing, would haunt him for decades....
No British Prime Minister has ever lost his seat at a General Election. Not one. The closest anyone has come are Balfour in 1906 and Macdonald in 1935, who had both been PM a few months before (one for Balfour, six for MacDonald).
For Johnson to lose his seat a la John Howard would be an epochal humiliation that would far dwarf any Portillo moment.
That is more a factor of how safe their seat is. Major's Huntingdon had a massive majority in 1992 for example but he won a smaller majority than Boris did in 2019 but with Boris' Uxbridge seat having a smaller majority.
As for John Howard he also won 4 general elections before he lost his seat and the election in 2007 and is still the second longest serving Australian PM since WW2
I didn't know Major stood in Huntingdon in 2019.
To an extent you're right about the safeness of the seats, and that's partly because promising politicians in marginal seats are usually transferred to safer ones so they don't get booted from the House of Commons, which until Johnson made his name as London mayor was the only way of gaining executive power. And, of course, around half of British Prime Ministers have been peers, which skews the figures.
But it would still be a calamitous result for Johnson, especially as he claims to be the man who wins every vote he contests.
Didn't Johnson lose one of his Oxford student contest. And the first time he stood for Parliament, in N Wales.
Johnson won the Presidency of the Oxford Union as the SDP backed candidate in the Thatcher years
I thought that was the second time that he tried. Does anyone know; I confess I can't be bothered to wade through his Wikipedia entry.
2 accounts here one from Toby Young.
Boris lost on his first attempt when he was the High Tory candidate to a state educated candidate who went on to be an adviser to Nick Clegg.
However he won on his second attempt, this time with the backing of the largely SDP Limehouse group against the Australian son of a multi millionaire
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
Again: what is your alternative?
Rwanda seems insane, until you consider all the other possible solutions, from Sink all the boats, to Let them all in
Encourage illegal workers to shop their employers (via the offer of a work-to-citizenship route)
My suggestion was they get 50% of an increased fine. There is a substantial fine for employing the undocumented already.
@rcs1000 was suggesting just a work permit for their testimony. Apparently in Switzerland, people were employing the undocumented as domestic servants, when this was bought in. Overnight this stopped.
The advantage of the fine is that, overnight, the employers attitude will go from “ha ha I can treat these people any way I feel like” to “oh shit, they are going to fuck me”
If you eliminate the demand pull, then it's amazing how quickly illegal immigration can be stopped.
My caveat is that the kinds of employers in this country who knowingly employ illegal immigrants would have very few qualms about doing nasty things to them if they testified.
China/Taiwan is much more of a David vs Goliath contest than Russia vs Ukraine. Population ratio more like 50:1 rather than 3:1. However Taiwan has probably got more modern kit than the Ukrainians do. And it's an island.
I always assumed that the Chinese leaders were cautious calculators. However if Xi gave his blessing to Putin's attack on Ukraine it suggests he's more full of hubris than I realised.
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
They're coming here not for the attractions of being stuck in a house that nobody wants because of massive crime to not be able to work and to subsist off non-cash vouchers for food. They're coming here to disappear into the black economy and work illegally.
Want to stop the boats? Go after the scum employers. Stop illegal labour, and you stop the boats.
Rwanda is another way to prevent them disappearing into the illegitimate economy (rephrased your term for clarity!)
"Tories set to lose 800 council seats – and Sir Keir Starmer on course to be PM in 2024 Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now forecast five per cent swing from Tories to Labour at local elections"
Isn't there a chance that the PM could lose his seat in an GE on figures like that? Have there been any whispers about him moving to a safer one?
It's another reason for Boris to depart next year. Losing an 80 seat majority to dreadfully dreary Starmer would be bad enough. Losing his seat too, in a Portillo moment of national rejoicing, would haunt him for decades....
No British Prime Minister has ever lost his seat at a General Election. Not one. The closest anyone has come are Balfour in 1906 and Macdonald in 1935, who had both been PM a few months before (one for Balfour, six for MacDonald).
For Johnson to lose his seat a la John Howard would be an epochal humiliation that would far dwarf any Portillo moment.
That is more a factor of how safe their seat is. Major's Huntingdon had a massive majority in 1992 for example but he won a smaller majority than Boris did in 2019 but with Boris' Uxbridge seat having a smaller majority.
As for John Howard he also won 4 general elections before he lost his seat and the election in 2007 and is still the second longest serving Australian PM since WW2
I didn't know Major stood in Huntingdon in 2019.
To an extent you're right about the safeness of the seats, and that's partly because promising politicians in marginal seats are usually transferred to safer ones so they don't get booted from the House of Commons, which until Johnson made his name as London mayor was the only way of gaining executive power. And, of course, around half of British Prime Ministers have been peers, which skews the figures.
But it would still be a calamitous result for Johnson, especially as he claims to be the man who wins every vote he contests.
Didn't Johnson lose one of his Oxford student contest. And the first time he stood for Parliament, in N Wales.
Johnson won the Presidency of the Oxford Union as the SDP backed candidate in the Thatcher years
I thought that was the second time that he tried. Does anyone know; I confess I can't be bothered to wade through his Wikipedia entry.
Yes, Boris lost as a straight Conservative on first attempt so allowed it to be thought he was SDP-friendly. It is covered in When Boris Met Dave, in which Boris's duplicity was condemned by Frank Luntz, the US Republican polling guru. Worth watching if you've not seen it.
Thanks again. Just think; if he'd picked the other side in the Referendum he could have ended up as President of the EU Commission.
You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
The "China will just walk in and take over Taiwan in 7 hours" thought line has taken a real hammering this conflict.
Not just the military aspects.
Analysts have been noting how taken aback the CCP powers-that-be have been by the western economic response, especially the voluntary aspects from private companies who have walked from Ru.
Is gaining Taiwan worth the economic collapse that would surely severely jeopardise their regime? Unlike Ru, China is holding to one party rule because it seems to work economically in that millions have become rich and middle class.
Yes, that's right. I can't see the slightest net benefit for China in invading Taiwan and I don't think they've seriously contemplated it for a long time. I hesitate to be dogmatic about how bonkers it would be as I though Putin was just willy-waving and he wan't, but has there actually been any Chinese declaration of intent to take over ("liberate") Taiwan in the last 20 years?
There was a speech in 2019 where he said "we should not allow this problem to be passed down from one generation to the next", which is pretty much exactly what Putin has been saying about Ukraine, and "we make no promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option of taking all necessary means". An invasion would be way they're going to get Taiwan back since they blew up "One Country Two Systems" in Hong Kong. So the position kind of is that they're going to invade.
I don't know enough about war to say what would happen if they tried, and seeing how people thought Ukraine would turn out compared to how it actually turned out has to make you suspicious of people who think they can predict what's going to happen in war. I expect Xi is better informed and more circumspect than Putin, but I can't say that for sure, and nobody really knows what's in his head.
On the other hand, invading over 100 miles of open ocean that has a dozen Taiwanese submarines in is not for the faint of heart.
And you can't really mount a surprise invasion - this would be like D-Day, but over a much wider body of water and where the defenders have satellite imagery.
Edit to add: and the Taiwanese military is not lacking in Western kit: they have significant numbers of the latest generation of F16s and Dassaults.
I think one would have to be madder than Mad Jack McMad to invade Taiwan. I think the Chinese would prefer to go for a mix of intimidation and bribery to regain that island.
Russia needs humiliation: they need to lose in Ukraine, and be seen to lose
This Manichean view of the conflict needs contextualisation. What would such a loss, that would be impossible to obfuscate, look like? Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 border?
You call it a 'Manichean' view. I am usually a shades-of-grey person, but I find it really, really difficult to do anything other than put the Russian regime fully in the 'evil' camp and Ukraine in the 'good' camp.
Do you differ? Do you think the Russian regime are the good guys? Do you think the Ukrainians have brought the death and destruction on themselves? How do you get shades-of-grey out of what Russia has done?
I have here a little list. Of PB-ers who ever-so-slightly want Russia to win, but are just too embarrassed to admit it out loud. You can spot them as they always over-estimate Russia’s military prowess, or they want a “peace now on present borders”, and they are super keen to NOT humiliate Putin. On PB it’s
I have a couple, similarly minded, in my friend/family network
I don’t necessarily condemn them. I quite strongly disagree - but it’s a free country. I just wish they’d be less mealy mouthed sometimes
Sigh. I've spoken at a Ukraine solidarity rally condeming the invasion. I've donated hundreds of pounds to support Western aid. I've repeatedly said here and elsewhere that Putin's behaviour is bonkers czarist imperialism. What do I need to do to avoid the claim that I want Russia to win?
Sure, I remember my mother with affection and she was Russian-born, and I don't think the Ukrainian record is perfect (for the reasons Dura Ace says). But the invasion is criminal lunacy, and it'd be horrrific to see it ending with Russia "winning" and Ukraine conquered and writhing under occupation.
The thing is, in conflicts people tend to become completely black and white. Our side has got to win outright, anything less than that is tantamount to supporting the other side. That thinking is ultimately at the expense of civilians who don't give a toss and simply want to live a decent life. It's the thinking which generates people like Putin, who regard any amount of suffering as OK if they can shift the border from X to Y. But few wars last forever, and in the end a deal short of total victory is usually a good idea.
BTW, I still think it's easily possible that Russia gets a tactical victory and takes over the eastern half of Ukraine, or even the entirety. It is getting less likely as time goes on, but is possible.
But IMO that would only be a tactical, not a strategic victory, as it will do immense damage to the Russia militarily, politically and economically.
Seems probable to me the east and south could still fall. Still worried at the capability of Ukraine to go on the offensive especially if Russia takes a scorched earth approach to defense. But things are at least more positive than they were.
What would be the economic effect of Ukraine losing the Donbass area?
No idea. It had already lost the largest cities of those areas 8 years ago, so presumably less effect now than then even if more lost.
M thought, too. So 'abandoning them to save Putin's face would cost little? Apart from Zelensky's 'face' of course.
And extinguishing the freedom of millions while legitimising Putin’s aggression
AIUI, while some Donbass conscripts are understandably unwilling to fight, there's a significant proportion of their parents who regard themselves as Russian and are pro-Russia.
On the subject of the Gotchva... It is interesting that in the most photographed and videoed war in history we don't have a single image of it in its damaged state. Did it all happen at night?
This is not conspiracy theory bullshit. I don't believe its secretly docked at Woolwich Ferry Terminal being controlled by Walt Disney's embalmed head.
I assume the only images we have of it are satellite and noone has leaked/released those yet for operational reasons. I assume it wasn't in sight of shore.
There are a fair number of commercial imagery satellites up there. Many with a resolution in terms of cm - 60cm is quite common.
A number have IR capabilities so should be able to take a picture at night.
If someone has a picture of the ship sinking, they would be able to sell it for a fair bit.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
Why is that relevant?
Because even I know that, as of yesterday morning, because it seems like important background to what we propose to do, and I am not the government minister responsible for the proposal. Like Truss not bothering to have a quick look at Ukraine on google maps before going to Moscow
Not really. The policy should be judged on (a) is it ethical; (b) will it be effective; (c) is it cost effective; (d) can it be implemented in a timely manner; and (e) are the implementation risks acceptable.
The average age of a Rwandan giraffe is not a relevant statistic. It’s garbage gotcha questions from a media who missed the opportunity to ask intelligent questions that actually matter.
Absolute poverty rate of over 90%, pop density greater than the Netherlands, median age 20 years, all seem to me to a bit relevant to the ethics of the proposal
Not really providing you put in adequate facilities and conditions. The ethical questions are more fundamental - “is it right” vs “are the conditions good enough to justify”
Russia needs humiliation: they need to lose in Ukraine, and be seen to lose
This Manichean view of the conflict needs contextualisation. What would such a loss, that would be impossible to obfuscate, look like? Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 border?
You call it a 'Manichean' view. I am usually a shades-of-grey person, but I find it really, really difficult to do anything other than put the Russian regime fully in the 'evil' camp and Ukraine in the 'good' camp.
Do you differ? Do you think the Russian regime are the good guys? Do you think the Ukrainians have brought the death and destruction on themselves? How do you get shades-of-grey out of what Russia has done?
I have here a little list. Of PB-ers who ever-so-slightly want Russia to win, but are just too embarrassed to admit it out loud. You can spot them as they always over-estimate Russia’s military prowess, or they want a “peace now on present borders”, and they are super keen to NOT humiliate Putin. On PB it’s
I have a couple, similarly minded, in my friend/family network
I don’t necessarily condemn them. I quite strongly disagree - but it’s a free country. I just wish they’d be less mealy mouthed sometimes
Sigh. I've spoken at a Ukraine solidarity rally condeming the invasion. I've donated hundreds of pounds to support Western aid. I've repeatedly said here and elsewhere that Putin's behaviour is bonkers czarist imperialism. What do I need to do to avoid the claim that I want Russia to win?
Sure, I remember my mother with affection and she was Russian-born, and I don't think the Ukrainian record is perfect (for the reasons Dura Ace says). But the invasion is criminal lunacy, and it'd be horrrific to see it ending with Russia "winning" and Ukraine conquered and writhing under occupation.
The thing is, in conflicts people tend to become completely black and white. Our side has got to win outright, anything less than that is tantamount to supporting the other side. That thinking is ultimately at the expense of civilians who don't give a toss and simply want to live a decent life. It's the thinking which generates people like Putin, who regard any amount of suffering as OK if they can shift the border from X to Y. But few wars last forever, and in the end a deal short of total victory is usually a good idea.
Wars are often shades of grey, and quite often, one side is as bad as the other.
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
Where did I say that? I prefer a humanitarian, sensible, well-managed refugee policy that respects other human beings and provides well-organised routes for genuine asylum seekers. I also prefer a system whereby asylum applications are processed in weeks rather than months or years.
This is not about asylum seekers. It only applies to single adult men (ie prime category economic migrants)
On the subject of the Gotchva... It is interesting that in the most photographed and videoed war in history we don't have a single image of it in its damaged state. Did it all happen at night?
This is not conspiracy theory bullshit. I don't believe its secretly docked at Woolwich Ferry Terminal being controlled by Walt Disney's embalmed head.
I assume the only images we have of it are satellite and noone has leaked/released those yet for operational reasons. I assume it wasn't in sight of shore.
It was taken forty years ago (precisely, in two weeks), at a time when cameras were orders of magnitude less ubiquitous and harder to use. It is hard to imagine there are no images, especially if there are lots of survivors.
I imagine the Turks have some images from their rescue attempts.
China/Taiwan is much more of a David vs Goliath contest than Russia vs Ukraine. Population ratio more like 50:1 rather than 3:1. However Taiwan has probably got more modern kit than the Ukrainians do. And it's an island.
I always assumed that the Chinese leaders were cautious calculators. However if Xi gave his blessing to Putin's attack on Ukraine it suggests he's more full of hubris than I realised.
We have this tendency to assume leaders of stable regimes in particular that they are calculating and coldly logical, even though ruthless, that they are aware of relevant matters and taking action to address them, in their own ways. I think it is oddly more reassuring that way, rather than that they might be riven with fractious internal politics or that the big man at the top may be less rational than we suppose.
For me something very telling was when the HK parish elections took place pre-Covid, and reportedly Beijing was genuinely stunned at the results, having believed its own propaganda that opinion was more evenly split. Their subsequent reaction to stamp down dissent and opinion in the city, aided by the cover of Covid, is presumably seen in light of their shock that they did not actually know what was going on.
Xi has already torn up the approach taken by the Chinese leadership in the last few decades, to secure his own power and position for as long as he wants, so while I hope he is calculating - he has more in his favour than Putin does - I think there's reason to fear he may be less rational than we would hope.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
Again: what is your alternative?
Rwanda seems insane, until you consider all the other possible solutions, from Sink all the boats, to Let them all in
Exactly. You have labour pretty much wanting unrestricted migration let them all in and the barking mad Kipper brigade wanting boats sunk or towed back. Something needs doing. This isn’t it though.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
Why is that relevant?
Because even I know that, as of yesterday morning, because it seems like important background to what we propose to do, and I am not the government minister responsible for the proposal. Like Truss not bothering to have a quick look at Ukraine on google maps before going to Moscow
Not really. The policy should be judged on (a) is it ethical; (b) will it be effective; (c) is it cost effective; (d) can it be implemented in a timely manner; and (e) are the implementation risks acceptable.
The average age of a Rwandan giraffe is not a relevant statistic. It’s garbage gotcha questions from a media who missed the opportunity to ask intelligent questions that actually matter.
Absolute poverty rate of over 90%, pop density greater than the Netherlands, median age 20 years, all seem to me to a bit relevant to the ethics of the proposal
Not really providing you put in adequate facilities and conditions. The ethical questions are more fundamental - “is it right” vs “are the conditions good enough to justify”
The botton of the North Sea is also not a problem, provided you put in a proper saturation diving environment.
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
They're coming here not for the attractions of being stuck in a house that nobody wants because of massive crime to not be able to work and to subsist off non-cash vouchers for food. They're coming here to disappear into the black economy and work illegally.
Want to stop the boats? Go after the scum employers. Stop illegal labour, and you stop the boats.
Rwanda is another way to prevent them disappearing into the illegitimate economy (rephrased your term for clarity!)
You said that unless we back Rwanda we "prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?" which is crap as there are options we choose not to do here.
We could have put a stop to all this and gone after the rogue employers. We haven't. Why do you think that is? And don't say "its too hard" when the "less hard" solution is catch every last man jack of them (which we don't do now) and lock them up whilst we inoculate them before rendering them to some kind of extra-judicial camp or settlement in Rwanda which has zero details yet worked out and has a cost per head higher than The Ritz.
The sole purpose in this announcement (it is not a policy) is headlines. Distract from the PM being exposed as a liar and a crook. And if it generates some woke war action all the better. Meanwhile the boat people still come, still disappear into the black economy and the profits keep coming in. As the New Party has taken an awful lot of donations from Russia and Russian ex-pats I do wonder if they are also taking donations from the very employers who utilise this illegal labour. Johnson's lot do nothing that doesn't enrich themselves.
BTW, I still think it's easily possible that Russia gets a tactical victory and takes over the eastern half of Ukraine, or even the entirety. It is getting less likely as time goes on, but is possible.
But IMO that would only be a tactical, not a strategic victory, as it will do immense damage to the Russia militarily, politically and economically.
Seems probable to me the east and south could still fall. Still worried at the capability of Ukraine to go on the offensive especially if Russia takes a scorched earth approach to defense. But things are at least more positive than they were.
What would be the economic effect of Ukraine losing the Donbass area?
No idea. It had already lost the largest cities of those areas 8 years ago, so presumably less effect now than then even if more lost.
M thought, too. So 'abandoning them to save Putin's face would cost little? Apart from Zelensky's 'face' of course.
And extinguishing the freedom of millions while legitimising Putin’s aggression
AIUI, while some Donbass conscripts are understandably unwilling to fight, there's a significant proportion of their parents who regard themselves as Russian and are pro-Russia.
Attitudes have changed given the last 8 years of mafiosa rule
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
Where did I say that? I prefer a humanitarian, sensible, well-managed refugee policy that respects other human beings and provides well-organised routes for genuine asylum seekers. I also prefer a system whereby asylum applications are processed in weeks rather than months or years.
So what about the ones who have they're claim rejected or are not asylum Seekers but economics migrants. They are still going to attempt the crossing. Your solution is no such thing.
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
They're coming here not for the attractions of being stuck in a house that nobody wants because of massive crime to not be able to work and to subsist off non-cash vouchers for food. They're coming here to disappear into the black economy and work illegally.
Want to stop the boats? Go after the scum employers. Stop illegal labour, and you stop the boats.
Rwanda is another way to prevent them disappearing into the illegitimate economy (rephrased your term for clarity!)
Black economy is a rather unfortunate choice of phrase.
You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
The "China will just walk in and take over Taiwan in 7 hours" thought line has taken a real hammering this conflict.
Not just the military aspects.
Analysts have been noting how taken aback the CCP powers-that-be have been by the western economic response, especially the voluntary aspects from private companies who have walked from Ru.
Is gaining Taiwan worth the economic collapse that would surely severely jeopardise their regime? Unlike Ru, China is holding to one party rule because it seems to work economically in that millions have become rich and middle class.
Yes, that's right. I can't see the slightest net benefit for China in invading Taiwan and I don't think they've seriously contemplated it for a long time. I hesitate to be dogmatic about how bonkers it would be as I though Putin was just willy-waving and he wan't, but has there actually been any Chinese declaration of intent to take over ("liberate") Taiwan in the last 20 years?
There was a speech in 2019 where he said "we should not allow this problem to be passed down from one generation to the next", which is pretty much exactly what Putin has been saying about Ukraine, and "we make no promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option of taking all necessary means". An invasion would be way they're going to get Taiwan back since they blew up "One Country Two Systems" in Hong Kong. So the position kind of is that they're going to invade.
I don't know enough about war to say what would happen if they tried, and seeing how people thought Ukraine would turn out compared to how it actually turned out has to make you suspicious of people who think they can predict what's going to happen in war. I expect Xi is better informed and more circumspect than Putin, but I can't say that for sure, and nobody really knows what's in his head.
On the other hand, invading over 100 miles of open ocean that has a dozen Taiwanese submarines in is not for the faint of heart.
And you can't really mount a surprise invasion - this would be like D-Day, but over a much wider body of water and where the defenders have satellite imagery.
Edit to add: and the Taiwanese military is not lacking in Western kit: they have significant numbers of the latest generation of F16s and Dassaults.
I think one would have to be madder than Mad Jack McMad to invade Taiwan. I think the Chinese would prefer to go for a mix of intimidation and bribery to regain that island.
Possibly, but the prize is an historical legacy as being the Reunifier of All China. Saying it would be costly and not pay for itself is not the point, any more than Scottish separatists want what they want because they think it will increase their pay packets
China/Taiwan is much more of a David vs Goliath contest than Russia vs Ukraine. Population ratio more like 50:1 rather than 3:1. However Taiwan has probably got more modern kit than the Ukrainians do. And it's an island.
I always assumed that the Chinese leaders were cautious calculators. However if Xi gave his blessing to Putin's attack on Ukraine it suggests he's more full of hubris than I realised.
I suspect the "blessing", which was very limited, was given through gritted teeth.
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
Me too. Although in my case "angry" is becoming my default as regards Johnson and how he rolls. The bleak insight I've had is that having lied his way to power (via Brexit) nothing he does now is driven by anything other than clinging onto it. And what he's identified as the best way to do so is to say and do things which appeal to simple minds and cheap tawdry sentiment. By this I don't wish to sound holier than thou. We all have a simple aspect to our minds and a cheap and tawdry aspect to our sentiments. I most certainly do. Aggregate up and as a nation we're a mix of this and other better, more elevated and thoughtful qualities, just as each constituent person is. Really good politics and politicians (of left right or centre) seek to stimulate and speak to our better side. Boris Johnson is doing the opposite. That's why I hate him (as PM) and I do mean the word. I find it hard to watch or listen to him now.
BTW, I still think it's easily possible that Russia gets a tactical victory and takes over the eastern half of Ukraine, or even the entirety. It is getting less likely as time goes on, but is possible.
But IMO that would only be a tactical, not a strategic victory, as it will do immense damage to the Russia militarily, politically and economically.
Seems probable to me the east and south could still fall. Still worried at the capability of Ukraine to go on the offensive especially if Russia takes a scorched earth approach to defense. But things are at least more positive than they were.
What would be the economic effect of Ukraine losing the Donbass area?
No idea. It had already lost the largest cities of those areas 8 years ago, so presumably less effect now than then even if more lost.
M thought, too. So 'abandoning them to save Putin's face would cost little? Apart from Zelensky's 'face' of course.
And extinguishing the freedom of millions while legitimising Putin’s aggression
AIUI, while some Donbass conscripts are understandably unwilling to fight, there's a significant proportion of their parents who regard themselves as Russian and are pro-Russia.
Less than there were, since Putin's invasion in 2014 turned the area into a mafia statelet.
On the subject of the Gotchva... It is interesting that in the most photographed and videoed war in history we don't have a single image of it in its damaged state. Did it all happen at night?
This is not conspiracy theory bullshit. I don't believe its secretly docked at Woolwich Ferry Terminal being controlled by Walt Disney's embalmed head.
I assume the only images we have of it are satellite and noone has leaked/released those yet for operational reasons. I assume it wasn't in sight of shore.
It was taken forty years ago (precisely, in two weeks), at a time when cameras were orders of magnitude less ubiquitous and harder to use. It is hard to imagine there are no images, especially if there are lots of survivors.
I imagine the Turks have some images from their rescue attempts.
I would imagine that the Turks would regard publishing pictures of the rescue operations as confidential due to the issue of provocation to Russia. And respect to the families of the very large number of people on board the Moskva.
The absence of a video or picture from Russian survivors is interesting. Mind you, interesting that no such video has leaked from Turkish sailors. Maybe they haven’t returned to port and there is no internet access yet?
Russia needs humiliation: they need to lose in Ukraine, and be seen to lose
This Manichean view of the conflict needs contextualisation. What would such a loss, that would be impossible to obfuscate, look like? Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 border?
You call it a 'Manichean' view. I am usually a shades-of-grey person, but I find it really, really difficult to do anything other than put the Russian regime fully in the 'evil' camp and Ukraine in the 'good' camp.
Do you differ? Do you think the Russian regime are the good guys? Do you think the Ukrainians have brought the death and destruction on themselves? How do you get shades-of-grey out of what Russia has done?
I have here a little list. Of PB-ers who ever-so-slightly want Russia to win, but are just too embarrassed to admit it out loud. You can spot them as they always over-estimate Russia’s military prowess, or they want a “peace now on present borders”, and they are super keen to NOT humiliate Putin. On PB it’s
I have a couple, similarly minded, in my friend/family network
I don’t necessarily condemn them. I quite strongly disagree - but it’s a free country. I just wish they’d be less mealy mouthed sometimes
The thing is, in conflicts people tend to become completely black and white. Our side has got to win outright, anything less than that is tantamount to supporting the other side. That thinking is ultimately at the expense of civilians who don't give a toss and simply want to live a decent life. It's the thinking which generates people like Putin, who regard any amount of suffering as OK if they can shift the border from X to Y. But few wars last forever, and in the end a deal short of total victory is usually a good idea.
That's broadly true, however my comment on that is that some are prioritising the idea that immediacy of ceasing the war is the only goal - Varoufakis went down this route - on the grounds of cost to civilians, but the fact is some prices for immediate end to conflict are not in fact worth it, or will not be considered so by the sides fighting.
That should not be controversial - as some Russian trolls put it, the quickest route to end the fighting is for Ukraine to just surrender, yet very few would argue that civilians would not care about that option. And if people seek to moralise, as StW and their disgusting gang do, that providing weaponry etc 'prolongs' or 'escalates' the war, those people deserve all the criticism they face, as they genuinely are arguing that Russia just be allowed to win, without admitting it, and without caring if the Ukrainians themselves might be willing to fight on, even though it costs them, because the longer cost would be worse.
So I think it is reasonable for people to not simply grab any chance for fighting to cease, as indeed Ukraine has not at this point, because the costs of that are too high. A deal short of final victory is more likely than total victory for either side, but it is also the case that given the nature of the conflict - an out and out invasion to seize territory - it would be wrong to be blase about the easy choice of 'giving' areas to Russia as a 'way ouy' or to 'save face' and present that as the easy, morally superior choice because it stops the fighting.
If and when Ukraine comes to some sort of deal - we would hope much more favourable to them and with as minimal concessions as they can manage - I expect some will criticise Zelensky, within and without Ukraine, for making that call, and that will be an odd moment, but nor is it a simple case being 'realistic'. If realists has been listened to the West wouldn't even have supplied much of what they have, as it'd be seen as pointless.
China/Taiwan is much more of a David vs Goliath contest than Russia vs Ukraine. Population ratio more like 50:1 rather than 3:1. However Taiwan has probably got more modern kit than the Ukrainians do. And it's an island.
I always assumed that the Chinese leaders were cautious calculators. However if Xi gave his blessing to Putin's attack on Ukraine it suggests he's more full of hubris than I realised.
I don't think you need to assume hubris to explain China giving Putin the OK. It's ideologically consistent - big countries have legitimate spheres of interest, America should mind it's own business. And strategically pretty great, because western isolation makes Russia totally dependent on China.
I'm not sure whether *Putin* has noticed that doing this turns him into the weak state in somebody else's sphere of interest, or thought about what it's like to be in that position, but that's Putin's problem and Xi's opportunity.
BTW, I still think it's easily possible that Russia gets a tactical victory and takes over the eastern half of Ukraine, or even the entirety. It is getting less likely as time goes on, but is possible.
But IMO that would only be a tactical, not a strategic victory, as it will do immense damage to the Russia militarily, politically and economically.
Seems probable to me the east and south could still fall. Still worried at the capability of Ukraine to go on the offensive especially if Russia takes a scorched earth approach to defense. But things are at least more positive than they were.
What would be the economic effect of Ukraine losing the Donbass area?
No idea. It had already lost the largest cities of those areas 8 years ago, so presumably less effect now than then even if more lost.
M thought, too. So 'abandoning them to save Putin's face would cost little? Apart from Zelensky's 'face' of course.
And extinguishing the freedom of millions while legitimising Putin’s aggression
AIUI, while some Donbass conscripts are understandably unwilling to fight, there's a significant proportion of their parents who regard themselves as Russian and are pro-Russia.
Less than there were, since Putin's invasion in 2014 turned the area into a mafia statelet.
What do I need to do to avoid the claim that I want Russia to win?
Unless you give full throated support to the proposition that Zelenskyy is a Disney Prince and the Ukrainian forces are Ewoks you'll always be under suspicion on here.
I've got a Ukrainian refugee playing Roblox on the TV in our living room so I can't watch the football and I'm still under suspicion of being a Putinite and Russian Nationalist.
BTW I hope everyone here is following Mike Martin on twitter, it's the perfect combination for pb people because it's like 75% military strategy currently focused for obvious reasons on Ukraine, but the other 25% is all about the LibDems Winning Here, where Here is Tunbridge Wells.
BTW, I still think it's easily possible that Russia gets a tactical victory and takes over the eastern half of Ukraine, or even the entirety. It is getting less likely as time goes on, but is possible.
But IMO that would only be a tactical, not a strategic victory, as it will do immense damage to the Russia militarily, politically and economically.
Seems probable to me the east and south could still fall. Still worried at the capability of Ukraine to go on the offensive especially if Russia takes a scorched earth approach to defense. But things are at least more positive than they were.
What would be the economic effect of Ukraine losing the Donbass area?
No idea. It had already lost the largest cities of those areas 8 years ago, so presumably less effect now than then even if more lost.
M thought, too. So 'abandoning them to save Putin's face would cost little? Apart from Zelensky's 'face' of course.
And extinguishing the freedom of millions while legitimising Putin’s aggression
AIUI, while some Donbass conscripts are understandably unwilling to fight, there's a significant proportion of their parents who regard themselves as Russian and are pro-Russia.
Attitudes have changed given the last 8 years of mafiosa rule
Could well have; however do we know, or do we think? And when push comes to shove, would these people rater be Russians, ie ruled from Moscow, or Ukrainians, ruled from Kyiv?
I'm not disagreeing with you, but there have been a few interviews from Mariupol which suggest that.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
I had a little go at this before diving into Wikipedia. I'm not proud of my guesses. I leave the real data off in case anybody wants to challenge themselves.
Population: I guessed 35 million Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
The "China will just walk in and take over Taiwan in 7 hours" thought line has taken a real hammering this conflict.
Not just the military aspects.
Analysts have been noting how taken aback the CCP powers-that-be have been by the western economic response, especially the voluntary aspects from private companies who have walked from Ru.
Is gaining Taiwan worth the economic collapse that would surely severely jeopardise their regime? Unlike Ru, China is holding to one party rule because it seems to work economically in that millions have become rich and middle class.
Yes, that's right. I can't see the slightest net benefit for China in invading Taiwan and I don't think they've seriously contemplated it for a long time. I hesitate to be dogmatic about how bonkers it would be as I though Putin was just willy-waving and he wan't, but has there actually been any Chinese declaration of intent to take over ("liberate") Taiwan in the last 20 years?
There was a speech in 2019 where he said "we should not allow this problem to be passed down from one generation to the next", which is pretty much exactly what Putin has been saying about Ukraine, and "we make no promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option of taking all necessary means". An invasion would be way they're going to get Taiwan back since they blew up "One Country Two Systems" in Hong Kong. So the position kind of is that they're going to invade.
I don't know enough about war to say what would happen if they tried, and seeing how people thought Ukraine would turn out compared to how it actually turned out has to make you suspicious of people who think they can predict what's going to happen in war. I expect Xi is better informed and more circumspect than Putin, but I can't say that for sure, and nobody really knows what's in his head.
On the other hand, invading over 100 miles of open ocean that has a dozen Taiwanese submarines in is not for the faint of heart.
And you can't really mount a surprise invasion - this would be like D-Day, but over a much wider body of water and where the defenders have satellite imagery.
Edit to add: and the Taiwanese military is not lacking in Western kit: they have significant numbers of the latest generation of F16s and Dassaults.
I think one would have to be madder than Mad Jack McMad to invade Taiwan. I think the Chinese would prefer to go for a mix of intimidation and bribery to regain that island.
Possibly, but the prize is an historical legacy as being the Reunifier of All China. Saying it would be costly and not pay for itself is not the point, any more than Scottish separatists want what they want because they think it will increase their pay packets
Most separatists manage to convince themselves that freedom and wealth are benevolently intertwined. Biafra? Catalonia? Singapore? Taiwan? I've even heard it suggested that an independent Scotland in full enjoyment of its oil reserves would be richer than before.
What do I need to do to avoid the claim that I want Russia to win?
Unless you give full throated support to the proposition that Zelenskyy is a Disney Prince and the Ukrainian forces are Ewoks you'll always be under suspicion on here.
I've got a Ukrainian refugee playing Roblox on the TV in our living room so I can't watch the football and I'm still under suspicion of being a Putinite and Russian Nationalist.
I don't believe I have said that about you, but I do believe that your (and Nick's) attempts to say Ukraine in any way deserve this due to their action is a bit silly, dangerous and irrelevant.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
I had a little go at this before diving into Wikipedia. I'm not proud of my guesses. I leave the real data off in case anybody wants to challenge themselves.
Population: I guessed 35 million Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
I'm guessing 6million and 35 average age. Now I'm going to look it up.
BTW, I still think it's easily possible that Russia gets a tactical victory and takes over the eastern half of Ukraine, or even the entirety. It is getting less likely as time goes on, but is possible.
But IMO that would only be a tactical, not a strategic victory, as it will do immense damage to the Russia militarily, politically and economically.
Seems probable to me the east and south could still fall. Still worried at the capability of Ukraine to go on the offensive especially if Russia takes a scorched earth approach to defense. But things are at least more positive than they were.
What would be the economic effect of Ukraine losing the Donbass area?
No idea. It had already lost the largest cities of those areas 8 years ago, so presumably less effect now than then even if more lost.
M thought, too. So 'abandoning them to save Putin's face would cost little? Apart from Zelensky's 'face' of course.
And extinguishing the freedom of millions while legitimising Putin’s aggression
AIUI, while some Donbass conscripts are understandably unwilling to fight, there's a significant proportion of their parents who regard themselves as Russian and are pro-Russia.
Less than there were, since Putin's invasion in 2014 turned the area into a mafia statelet.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
I had a little go at this before diving into Wikipedia. I'm not proud of my guesses. I leave the real data off in case anybody wants to challenge themselves.
Population: I guessed 35 million Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
I'm guessing 6million and 35 average age. Now I'm going to look it up.
You are better and worse than me at the same time. One of the figures shocked me.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
I had a little go at this before diving into Wikipedia. I'm not proud of my guesses. I leave the real data off in case anybody wants to challenge themselves.
Population: I guessed 35 million Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
I guessed an even higher population, but much lower average age. I think I was getting confused because the enormous DR Congo has a mahoosive population.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
I had a little go at this before diving into Wikipedia. I'm not proud of my guesses. I leave the real data off in case anybody wants to challenge themselves.
Population: I guessed 35 million Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
I went with 5m and 20 years, which I regard as respectable
Astonished! What's the point at this stage of the season? Dyche has done really well for Burnley, yes it looks like they will go down this time but who is going to come in to save them at this stage?
They could have waited til end of season to move Dyche on.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
I had a little go at this before diving into Wikipedia. I'm not proud of my guesses. I leave the real data off in case anybody wants to challenge themselves.
Population: I guessed 35 million Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
I'm guessing 6million and 35 average age. Now I'm going to look it up.
You are better and worse than me at the same time. One of the figures shocked me.
It seems median age is the measure used (I couldn't find mean age) - that does make a bit of a difference.
What do I need to do to avoid the claim that I want Russia to win?
Unless you give full throated support to the proposition that Zelenskyy is a Disney Prince and the Ukrainian forces are Ewoks you'll always be under suspicion on here.
Playing the drama queen martyr about it is not a good look, it's been like one or two people who said it. Plenty of people do not see Zelenskyy or Ukraine that way without viewing more tempered views with such suspicion - misinterpreting your views isn;t countered by misinterpreting most others as if they were that tiny group.
Russia needs humiliation: they need to lose in Ukraine, and be seen to lose
This Manichean view of the conflict needs contextualisation. What would such a loss, that would be impossible to obfuscate, look like? Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 border?
You call it a 'Manichean' view. I am usually a shades-of-grey person, but I find it really, really difficult to do anything other than put the Russian regime fully in the 'evil' camp and Ukraine in the 'good' camp.
Do you differ? Do you think the Russian regime are the good guys? Do you think the Ukrainians have brought the death and destruction on themselves? How do you get shades-of-grey out of what Russia has done?
I have here a little list. Of PB-ers who ever-so-slightly want Russia to win, but are just too embarrassed to admit it out loud. You can spot them as they always over-estimate Russia’s military prowess, or they want a “peace now on present borders”, and they are super keen to NOT humiliate Putin. On PB it’s
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
I had a little go at this before diving into Wikipedia. I'm not proud of my guesses. I leave the real data off in case anybody wants to challenge themselves.
Population: I guessed 35 million Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
I guessed an even higher population, but much lower average age. I think I was getting confused because the enormous DR Congo has a mahoosive population.
Yup, I think there are some pretty chunky populations in the area. I think my guess was bad because it's a smaller country than I thought. I think I imagined it as being Bulgaria-sized but no, it's Belgium-sized.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
I had a little go at this before diving into Wikipedia. I'm not proud of my guesses. I leave the real data off in case anybody wants to challenge themselves.
Population: I guessed 35 million Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
I'm guessing 6million and 35 average age. Now I'm going to look it up.
You are better and worse than me at the same time. One of the figures shocked me.
You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
The "China will just walk in and take over Taiwan in 7 hours" thought line has taken a real hammering this conflict.
Not just the military aspects.
Analysts have been noting how taken aback the CCP powers-that-be have been by the western economic response, especially the voluntary aspects from private companies who have walked from Ru.
Is gaining Taiwan worth the economic collapse that would surely severely jeopardise their regime? Unlike Ru, China is holding to one party rule because it seems to work economically in that millions have become rich and middle class.
Yes, that's right. I can't see the slightest net benefit for China in invading Taiwan and I don't think they've seriously contemplated it for a long time. I hesitate to be dogmatic about how bonkers it would be as I though Putin was just willy-waving and he wan't, but has there actually been any Chinese declaration of intent to take over ("liberate") Taiwan in the last 20 years?
There was a speech in 2019 where he said "we should not allow this problem to be passed down from one generation to the next", which is pretty much exactly what Putin has been saying about Ukraine, and "we make no promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option of taking all necessary means". An invasion would be way they're going to get Taiwan back since they blew up "One Country Two Systems" in Hong Kong. So the position kind of is that they're going to invade.
I don't know enough about war to say what would happen if they tried, and seeing how people thought Ukraine would turn out compared to how it actually turned out has to make you suspicious of people who think they can predict what's going to happen in war. I expect Xi is better informed and more circumspect than Putin, but I can't say that for sure, and nobody really knows what's in his head.
On the other hand, invading over 100 miles of open ocean that has a dozen Taiwanese submarines in is not for the faint of heart.
And you can't really mount a surprise invasion - this would be like D-Day, but over a much wider body of water and where the defenders have satellite imagery.
Edit to add: and the Taiwanese military is not lacking in Western kit: they have significant numbers of the latest generation of F16s and Dassaults.
I think one would have to be madder than Mad Jack McMad to invade Taiwan. I think the Chinese would prefer to go for a mix of intimidation and bribery to regain that island.
Possibly, but the prize is an historical legacy as being the Reunifier of All China. Saying it would be costly and not pay for itself is not the point, any more than Scottish separatists want what they want because they think it will increase their pay packets
Most separatists manage to convince themselves that freedom and wealth are benevolently intertwined. Biafra? Catalonia? Singapore? Taiwan? I've even heard it suggested that an independent Scotland in full enjoyment of its oil reserves would be richer than before.
Astonished! What's the point at this stage of the season? Dyche has done really well for Burnley, yes it looks like they will go down this time but who is going to come in to save them at this stage?
They could have waited til end of season to move Dyche on.
Still that's football!
He worked miracles with no money. Firing him now doesn't keep Burnley up, but does make it less likely they win promotion back up next year.
Some years ago, there was an elderly lady who lived in the Park Lane area, who took a very miniature horse for walks in Hyde Park. It was literally 2 foot tall. Looked exactly like a horse - not a miniature pony or something.
I saw it fairly close up - she’d ever had miniature horse tac made up, so it was on a lead rein.
Thirty or more years ago, a gentleman in full military regalia would ride his horse into Derby to go to the bank (now the Standing Order pub). I think it was every Thursday morning. I was only a child, and he looked so splendid that I was quite in awe of him.
And a couple of weeks ago, I saw a woman in a mobility chair taking a small horse for a walk through a neighbouring village. It was such a small horse that at first I thought it was a very large dog, and only realised it was a horse as I got nearer. So much for my taxonomy skills ...
One of the problems in animal or plant taxonomy is sorting out the different vernacular names in the various languages - precisely why LInnaeus formulated his binomial system e.g. Homarus gammarus. I can only imagine that the Manc gentleman made a translation error of 'ferret' for 'lobster' when reading of Gerard de Nerval and his walkies in the Parisian boulevards:
« En quoi un homard est-il plus ridicule qu’un chien, qu’un chat, qu’une gazelle, qu’un lion ou toute autre bête dont on se fait suivre ? J’ai le goût des homards, qui sont tranquilles, sérieux, savent les secrets de la mer, n’aboient pas et n’avalent pas la monade des gens comme les chiens, si antipathiques à Goethe, lequel pourtant n’était pas fou. ».
Russia needs humiliation: they need to lose in Ukraine, and be seen to lose
This Manichean view of the conflict needs contextualisation. What would such a loss, that would be impossible to obfuscate, look like? Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 border?
You call it a 'Manichean' view. I am usually a shades-of-grey person, but I find it really, really difficult to do anything other than put the Russian regime fully in the 'evil' camp and Ukraine in the 'good' camp.
Do you differ? Do you think the Russian regime are the good guys? Do you think the Ukrainians have brought the death and destruction on themselves? How do you get shades-of-grey out of what Russia has done?
I have here a little list. Of PB-ers who ever-so-slightly want Russia to win, but are just too embarrassed to admit it out loud. You can spot them as they always over-estimate Russia’s military prowess, or they want a “peace now on present borders”, and they are super keen to NOT humiliate Putin. On PB it’s
I have a couple, similarly minded, in my friend/family network
I don’t necessarily condemn them. I quite strongly disagree - but it’s a free country. I just wish they’d be less mealy mouthed sometimes
@Leon - erstwhile Putin cheerleader and Le Pen fanboi.
But tbf a change of heart from the Fruity One. It's clear he feels Putin has nullified his antiwoke credentials by invading Ukraine and threatening nuclear war.
Russia needs humiliation: they need to lose in Ukraine, and be seen to lose
This Manichean view of the conflict needs contextualisation. What would such a loss, that would be impossible to obfuscate, look like? Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 border?
You call it a 'Manichean' view. I am usually a shades-of-grey person, but I find it really, really difficult to do anything other than put the Russian regime fully in the 'evil' camp and Ukraine in the 'good' camp.
Do you differ? Do you think the Russian regime are the good guys? Do you think the Ukrainians have brought the death and destruction on themselves? How do you get shades-of-grey out of what Russia has done?
I have here a little list. Of PB-ers who ever-so-slightly want Russia to win, but are just too embarrassed to admit it out loud. You can spot them as they always over-estimate Russia’s military prowess, or they want a “peace now on present borders”, and they are super keen to NOT humiliate Putin. On PB it’s
I have a couple, similarly minded, in my friend/family network
I don’t necessarily condemn them. I quite strongly disagree - but it’s a free country. I just wish they’d be less mealy mouthed sometimes
Sigh. I've spoken at a Ukraine solidarity rally condeming the invasion. I've donated hundreds of pounds to support Western aid. I've repeatedly said here and elsewhere that Putin's behaviour is bonkers czarist imperialism. What do I need to do to avoid the claim that I want Russia to win?
Sure, I remember my mother with affection and she was Russian-born, and I don't think the Ukrainian record is perfect (for the reasons Dura Ace says). But the invasion is criminal lunacy, and it'd be horrrific to see it ending with Russia "winning" and Ukraine conquered and writhing under occupation.
The thing is, in conflicts people tend to become completely black and white. Our side has got to win outright, anything less than that is tantamount to supporting the other side. That thinking is ultimately at the expense of civilians who don't give a toss and simply want to live a decent life. It's the thinking which generates people like Putin, who regard any amount of suffering as OK if they can shift the border from X to Y. But few wars last forever, and in the end a deal short of total victory is usually a good idea.
That depends on whether both sides regard that deal as a deal or whether (at least) one just views it as an intermission.
Unless Putin goes, and his regime and political culture with him, then he will regard any agreement as no more binding as he viewed previous, supposedly lasting, deals.
There will probably not be another chance to restore Ukraine to its rightful borders - certainly not a better one - than now. That will definitely be true if official recognition is given to some of Moscow's territorial claims, where their justification is little more than that they've conquered the areas.
Russia screwed this invasion up. We should not assume that they will screw the next one, if they are given the foothold to have the opportunity. All occupied areas, from the Crimea to the Donbas, need recovering.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
I had a little go at this before diving into Wikipedia. I'm not proud of my guesses. I leave the real data off in case anybody wants to challenge themselves.
Population: I guessed 35 million Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
I'm guessing 6million and 35 average age. Now I'm going to look it up.
Edit Pah! Also rubbish.
The average age in the UK is 40, so I'd be staggered if Rwanda was anywhere near that.
It's very reassuring that Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, had to admit on BBC Breakfast that he had no idea what the population of Rwanda is, or the average age of its citizens, as he extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers there from the UK. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1514860762321334276
I had a little go at this before diving into Wikipedia. I'm not proud of my guesses. I leave the real data off in case anybody wants to challenge themselves.
Population: I guessed 35 million Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
I'm guessing 6million and 35 average age. Now I'm going to look it up.
You are better and worse than me at the same time. One of the figures shocked me.
Yeah, me too.
Morning all.
I posted about the size / pop of Rwanda yesterday.
I did not try the median age, but I know that life expectancy is now 6x, and that population growth is 2.5% pa, which is rapid but not the highest.
The stand up and look one for me is the historic life expectancy:
Russia needs humiliation: they need to lose in Ukraine, and be seen to lose
This Manichean view of the conflict needs contextualisation. What would such a loss, that would be impossible to obfuscate, look like? Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 border?
You call it a 'Manichean' view. I am usually a shades-of-grey person, but I find it really, really difficult to do anything other than put the Russian regime fully in the 'evil' camp and Ukraine in the 'good' camp.
Do you differ? Do you think the Russian regime are the good guys? Do you think the Ukrainians have brought the death and destruction on themselves? How do you get shades-of-grey out of what Russia has done?
I have here a little list. Of PB-ers who ever-so-slightly want Russia to win, but are just too embarrassed to admit it out loud. You can spot them as they always over-estimate Russia’s military prowess, or they want a “peace now on present borders”, and they are super keen to NOT humiliate Putin. On PB it’s
I have a couple, similarly minded, in my friend/family network
I don’t necessarily condemn them. I quite strongly disagree - but it’s a free country. I just wish they’d be less mealy mouthed sometimes
Sigh. I've spoken at a Ukraine solidarity rally condeming the invasion. I've donated hundreds of pounds to support Western aid. I've repeatedly said here and elsewhere that Putin's behaviour is bonkers czarist imperialism. What do I need to do to avoid the claim that I want Russia to win?
Sure, I remember my mother with affection and she was Russian-born, and I don't think the Ukrainian record is perfect (for the reasons Dura Ace says). But the invasion is criminal lunacy, and it'd be horrrific to see it ending with Russia "winning" and Ukraine conquered and writhing under occupation.
The thing is, in conflicts people tend to become completely black and white. Our side has got to win outright, anything less than that is tantamount to supporting the other side. That thinking is ultimately at the expense of civilians who don't give a toss and simply want to live a decent life. It's the thinking which generates people like Putin, who regard any amount of suffering as OK if they can shift the border from X to Y. But few wars last forever, and in the end a deal short of total victory is usually a good idea.
That depends on whether both sides regard that deal as a deal or whether (at least) one just views it as an intermission.
Unless Putin goes, and his regime and political culture with him, then he will regard any agreement as no more binding as he viewed previous, supposedly lasting, deals.
There will probably not be another chance to restore Ukraine to its rightful borders - certainly not a better one - than now. That will definitely be true if official recognition is given to some of Moscow's territorial claims, where their justification is little more than that they've conquered the areas.
Russia screwed this invasion up. We should not assume that they will screw the next one, if they are given the foothold to have the opportunity. All occupied areas, from the Crimea to the Donbas, need recovering.
Russia needs humiliation: they need to lose in Ukraine, and be seen to lose
This Manichean view of the conflict needs contextualisation. What would such a loss, that would be impossible to obfuscate, look like? Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 border?
You call it a 'Manichean' view. I am usually a shades-of-grey person, but I find it really, really difficult to do anything other than put the Russian regime fully in the 'evil' camp and Ukraine in the 'good' camp.
Do you differ? Do you think the Russian regime are the good guys? Do you think the Ukrainians have brought the death and destruction on themselves? How do you get shades-of-grey out of what Russia has done?
I have here a little list. Of PB-ers who ever-so-slightly want Russia to win, but are just too embarrassed to admit it out loud. You can spot them as they always over-estimate Russia’s military prowess, or they want a “peace now on present borders”, and they are super keen to NOT humiliate Putin. On PB it’s
I have a couple, similarly minded, in my friend/family network
I don’t necessarily condemn them. I quite strongly disagree - but it’s a free country. I just wish they’d be less mealy mouthed sometimes
Sigh. I've spoken at a Ukraine solidarity rally condeming the invasion. I've donated hundreds of pounds to support Western aid. I've repeatedly said here and elsewhere that Putin's behaviour is bonkers czarist imperialism. What do I need to do to avoid the claim that I want Russia to win?
Sure, I remember my mother with affection and she was Russian-born, and I don't think the Ukrainian record is perfect (for the reasons Dura Ace says). But the invasion is criminal lunacy, and it'd be horrrific to see it ending with Russia "winning" and Ukraine conquered and writhing under occupation.
The thing is, in conflicts people tend to become completely black and white. Our side has got to win outright, anything less than that is tantamount to supporting the other side. That thinking is ultimately at the expense of civilians who don't give a toss and simply want to live a decent life. It's the thinking which generates people like Putin, who regard any amount of suffering as OK if they can shift the border from X to Y. But few wars last forever, and in the end a deal short of total victory is usually a good idea.
"What do I need etc"
Stop reading posts by tedious virtue signalling trolls like Leon and Jessop. It's easy!
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
Where did I say that? I prefer a humanitarian, sensible, well-managed refugee policy that respects other human beings and provides well-organised routes for genuine asylum seekers. I also prefer a system whereby asylum applications are processed in weeks rather than months or years.
This is not about asylum seekers. It only applies to single adult men (ie prime category economic migrants)
Single adult men can be seeking asylum too. Single adult men can be tortured by totalitarian regimes. Single adult men can be at risk of being shot on sight. Single adult men can be locked up without trial. The largest group of single adult men crossing the Channel, IIRC, are from Syria. Do you doubt that people coming from Syria are fleeing war and persecution?
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
Where did I say that? I prefer a humanitarian, sensible, well-managed refugee policy that respects other human beings and provides well-organised routes for genuine asylum seekers. I also prefer a system whereby asylum applications are processed in weeks rather than months or years.
This is not about asylum seekers. It only applies to single adult men (ie prime category economic migrants)
Single adult men can be seeking asylum too. Single adult men can be tortured by totalitarian regimes. Single adult men can be at risk of being shot on sight. Single adult men can be locked up without trial. The largest group of single adult men crossing the Channel, IIRC, are from Syria. Do you doubt that people coming from Syria are fleeing war and persecution?
It strikes me that the Rwandan deal could backfire on the government. It seems pretty half-baked, and is reminiscent of a similar 'oven-ready' deal a couple of years back, also announced for political expediency. It will only succeed if it reduces the number of cross-channel refugees significantly, and that depends on effective implementation - highly doubtful via the Home Office.
It seems to be assumed that this red meat policy was designed to distract from partygate. I suspect that the timing of the announcement was more to do with a) distracting from the large number of migrant crossings we'll get this week now the weather has turned, and b) distracting from the significant travel problems expected over this weekend.
I haven't commented on the substance of the Rwandan policy itself, because I find every single aspect of it beyond the pale. Very little makes me angry - this did.
You prefer to encourage people to close on dangerous rafts and are willing to accept the inevitable casualties?
Where did I say that? I prefer a humanitarian, sensible, well-managed refugee policy that respects other human beings and provides well-organised routes for genuine asylum seekers. I also prefer a system whereby asylum applications are processed in weeks rather than months or years.
This is not about asylum seekers. It only applies to single adult men (ie prime category economic migrants)
Single adult men can be seeking asylum too. Single adult men can be tortured by totalitarian regimes. Single adult men can be at risk of being shot on sight. Single adult men can be locked up without trial. The largest group of single adult men crossing the Channel, IIRC, are from Syria. Do you doubt that people coming from Syria are fleeing war and persecution?
These proposals seem to be evolving hourly.
Also trying to spread the blame to MoD (perhaps to nobble Mr Wallace as a threat to Mr Johnson?).
Nick Palmer - civilians don't give a toss and just want to live a decent life?
I still feel you don't really get it. We're not talking about Alsace Lorraine! Maybe in Crimea where the population might prefer to be part of Russia but as for the rest of the country? Donetsk and Lukansk have been turned into warlord cities on purpose. Putin set out to punish a western oriented Ukraine. If you want a decent life in Ukraine you probably don't want to be living under Russian rule.
Ukrainians appear to be increasingly anti-Russian and not just anti-Putin in their mindset. Why? They feel that if you give Russians a washing machine and decent roads they'll accept anything from their leaders. I don't know if that is truly fair and Russia may have been infanitilised by their oil and gas economy but Ukrainians want something else. FREEDOM. And they are willing to fight for it. They have a functioning, if somewhat chaotic democracy that does work in kicking out failing politicians. No President has been re-elected in the time that Vladimir Putin has been in charge in Russia. Given the centralisation of power around himself and the lack of any succession planning goodness knows what happens to Russia when he finally departs. Ukraine has a free media and a determination to deal with corruption. It is an absolute tragedy that this should all be threatened because it doesn't suit the world's number one mafioso.
I'm surprised that someone who grew up in the time of the cold war doesn't understand the ideological angle to all this. Zelensky wasn't just a comedian. He starred in a TV show mocking the corruption of Ukrainian politics (and Putin too). He got 72% of the vote! It's all staring at you in great big neon lights. A political chasm has opened up along Europe's longest border. Ukrainians idea of a decent is very different to Mr Putin's.
Comments
TBH I'm not that impressed by any of the County Captains so far this season, but it's very early days.
And no, I'm not putting forward Essex' captain, Westley.
The current number of strategic warheads there is heading towards certain lower limits. Essentially if an adversary gets in a brilliant sneak attack, do you have enough left….
It is Russia’s actions that have killed off any extension non-proliferation. And will make any future rulers of Russian cling to their nukes like grim death. Without nukes, they will be thinking of an alliance between Ukraine and Eastern Europe, angry and waiting…..
Apart from Zelensky's 'face' of course.
I don't know enough about war to say what would happen if they tried, and seeing how people thought Ukraine would turn out compared to how it actually turned out has to make you suspicious of people who think they can predict what's going to happen in war. I expect Xi is better informed and more circumspect than Putin, but I can't say that for sure, and nobody really knows what's in his head.
My taste never went like that with the Omicron but I can relate a little bit in that I lost my sense of smell completely and I found it weird and also quite a downer. You don't realize how much it contributes until you don't have it. It made me feel disconnected from my surroundings.
Was worried too, since I read it can sometimes take months to normalize. But anyway, it didn't thankfully. It did take 4 weeks though. The great day was this Wed just gone. I farted in the bath and the aroma came through sweet and clear. That was the final piece in the puzzle for me. The last remaining symptom. Goodbye Covid, it was *not* nice meeting you.
The average age of a Rwandan giraffe is not a relevant statistic. It’s garbage gotcha questions from a media who missed the opportunity to ask intelligent questions that actually matter.
Merely cranking up penalties is ineffective anyway, look how people kept on stealing loaves of bread and poaching rabbits when those things got you transported to Australia, because they thought the penalty was irrelevant because they wouldn't get caught. There won't be a cranking up of detection because that costs money and this is just a half-arsed gimmick, people will know that people are still getting through because they'll get a whatsapp, so it will make bugger all difference
Want to stop the boats? Go after the scum employers. Stop illegal labour, and you stop the boats.
And you can't really mount a surprise invasion - this would be like D-Day, but over a much wider body of water and where the defenders have satellite imagery.
Fire onboard confirmed 0100
Port side list develops 0114
Turkish vessel rescues 54 sailers 0207
Turkey & Romania report it has sunk 0248
https://sofrep.com/amp/news/moskva-hit-by-two-cruise-missiles-heres-what-we-know-so-far/
Website was first on Google so don’t know if legit
Boris lost on his first attempt when he was the High Tory candidate to a state educated candidate who went on to be an adviser to Nick Clegg.
However he won on his second attempt, this time with the backing of the largely SDP Limehouse group against the Australian son of a multi millionaire
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/15/oxford-union-president-boris-johnson-neil-sherlock
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-s-art-of-war
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59900139.amp
And a couple of weeks ago, I saw a woman in a mobility chair taking a small horse for a walk through a neighbouring village. It was such a small horse that at first I thought it was a very large dog, and only realised it was a horse as I got nearer. So much for my taxonomy skills ...
My gast is now flabbered. It’s a one hour train ride and the ticket cost me ONE EURO!
I’m now off to find somewhere for a beer or two in the couple of hours before it leaves.
So that gives us the minimalist position.
Something like HMS Audacious - heavy damage followed by slow, progressive flooding.
I always assumed that the Chinese leaders were cautious calculators. However if Xi gave his blessing to Putin's attack on Ukraine it suggests he's more full of hubris than I realised.
Just think; if he'd picked the other side in the Referendum he could have ended up as President of the EU Commission.
These people have broken no laws
Sure, I remember my mother with affection and she was Russian-born, and I don't think the Ukrainian record is perfect (for the reasons Dura Ace says). But the invasion is criminal lunacy, and it'd be horrrific to see it ending with Russia "winning" and Ukraine conquered and writhing under occupation.
The thing is, in conflicts people tend to become completely black and white. Our side has got to win outright, anything less than that is tantamount to supporting the other side. That thinking is ultimately at the expense of civilians who don't give a toss and simply want to live a decent life. It's the thinking which generates people like Putin, who regard any amount of suffering as OK if they can shift the border from X to Y. But few wars last forever, and in the end a deal short of total victory is usually a good idea.
A number have IR capabilities so should be able to take a picture at night.
If someone has a picture of the ship sinking, they would be able to sell it for a fair bit.
But, I don't think that's the case here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano#/media/File:ARA_Belgrano_sinking.jpg
It was taken forty years ago (precisely, in two weeks), at a time when cameras were orders of magnitude less ubiquitous and harder to use. It is hard to imagine there are no images, especially if there are lots of survivors.
I imagine the Turks have some images from their rescue attempts.
For me something very telling was when the HK parish elections took place pre-Covid, and reportedly Beijing was genuinely stunned at the results, having believed its own propaganda that opinion was more evenly split. Their subsequent reaction to stamp down dissent and opinion in the city, aided by the cover of Covid, is presumably seen in light of their shock that they did not actually know what was going on.
Xi has already torn up the approach taken by the Chinese leadership in the last few decades, to secure his own power and position for as long as he wants, so while I hope he is calculating - he has more in his favour than Putin does - I think there's reason to fear he may be less rational than we would hope.
We could have put a stop to all this and gone after the rogue employers. We haven't. Why do you think that is? And don't say "its too hard" when the "less hard" solution is catch every last man jack of them (which we don't do now) and lock them up whilst we inoculate them before rendering them to some kind of extra-judicial camp or settlement in Rwanda which has zero details yet worked out and has a cost per head higher than The Ritz.
The sole purpose in this announcement (it is not a policy) is headlines. Distract from the PM being exposed as a liar and a crook. And if it generates some woke war action all the better. Meanwhile the boat people still come, still disappear into the black economy and the profits keep coming in. As the New Party has taken an awful lot of donations from Russia and Russian ex-pats I do wonder if they are also taking donations from the very employers who utilise this illegal labour. Johnson's lot do nothing that doesn't enrich themselves.
Also, look at the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum results. It was hardly a resounding vote in favour of Russia by those parents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
The absence of a video or picture from Russian survivors is interesting. Mind you, interesting that no such video has leaked from Turkish sailors. Maybe they haven’t returned to port and there is no internet access yet?
That should not be controversial - as some Russian trolls put it, the quickest route to end the fighting is for Ukraine to just surrender, yet very few would argue that civilians would not care about that option. And if people seek to moralise, as StW and their disgusting gang do, that providing weaponry etc 'prolongs' or 'escalates' the war, those people deserve all the criticism they face, as they genuinely are arguing that Russia just be allowed to win, without admitting it, and without caring if the Ukrainians themselves might be willing to fight on, even though it costs them, because the longer cost would be worse.
So I think it is reasonable for people to not simply grab any chance for fighting to cease, as indeed Ukraine has not at this point, because the costs of that are too high. A deal short of final victory is more likely than total victory for either side, but it is also the case that given the nature of the conflict - an out and out invasion to seize territory - it would be wrong to be blase about the easy choice of 'giving' areas to Russia as a 'way ouy' or to 'save face' and present that as the easy, morally superior choice because it stops the fighting.
If and when Ukraine comes to some sort of deal - we would hope much more favourable to them and with as minimal concessions as they can manage - I expect some will criticise Zelensky, within and without Ukraine, for making that call, and that will be an odd moment, but nor is it a simple case being 'realistic'. If realists has been listened to the West wouldn't even have supplied much of what they have, as it'd be seen as pointless.
I'm not sure whether *Putin* has noticed that doing this turns him into the weak state in somebody else's sphere of interest, or thought about what it's like to be in that position, but that's Putin's problem and Xi's opportunity.
Rather upset one of the “plebecites are the way out” people here, IIRC.
I've got a Ukrainian refugee playing Roblox on the TV in our living room so I can't watch the football and I'm still under suspicion of being a Putinite and Russian Nationalist.
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought
I'm not disagreeing with you, but there have been a few interviews from Mariupol which suggest that.
Population: I guessed 35 million
Average age: I guessed 29
You can chalk up Rwanda as "here be dragons" in my mental map of the world. Must do better.
Edit Pah! Also rubbish.
Otherwise noted. Recovery by Ukraine it is.
One of the figures shocked me.
They could have waited til end of season to move Dyche on.
Still that's football!
Hmmm.
« En quoi un homard est-il plus ridicule qu’un chien, qu’un chat, qu’une gazelle, qu’un lion ou toute autre bête dont on se fait suivre ? J’ai le goût des homards, qui sont tranquilles, sérieux, savent les secrets de la mer, n’aboient pas et n’avalent pas la monade des gens comme les chiens, si antipathiques à Goethe, lequel pourtant n’était pas fou. ».
Unless Putin goes, and his regime and political culture with him, then he will regard any agreement as no more binding as he viewed previous, supposedly lasting, deals.
There will probably not be another chance to restore Ukraine to its rightful borders - certainly not a better one - than now. That will definitely be true if official recognition is given to some of Moscow's territorial claims, where their justification is little more than that they've conquered the areas.
Russia screwed this invasion up. We should not assume that they will screw the next one, if they are given the foothold to have the opportunity. All occupied areas, from the Crimea to the Donbas, need recovering.
I posted about the size / pop of Rwanda yesterday.
I did not try the median age, but I know that life expectancy is now 6x, and that population growth is 2.5% pa, which is rapid but not the highest.
The stand up and look one for me is the historic life expectancy:
Probably provide a Gonzo Video of you personally blowing up the Kerch Bridge.
There are also about 6 guided-missile frigates that need sinking, whilst you are at it.
Stop reading posts by tedious virtue signalling trolls like Leon and Jessop. It's easy!
I still feel you don't really get it. We're not talking about Alsace Lorraine! Maybe in Crimea where the population might prefer to be part of Russia but as for the rest of the country? Donetsk and Lukansk have been turned into warlord cities on purpose. Putin set out to punish a western oriented Ukraine. If you want a decent life in Ukraine you probably don't want to be living under Russian rule.
Ukrainians appear to be increasingly anti-Russian and not just anti-Putin in their mindset. Why? They feel that if you give Russians a washing machine and decent roads they'll accept anything from their leaders. I don't know if that is truly fair and Russia may have been infanitilised by their oil and gas economy but Ukrainians want something else. FREEDOM. And they are willing to fight for it. They have a functioning, if somewhat chaotic democracy that does work in kicking out failing politicians. No President has been re-elected in the time that Vladimir Putin has been in charge in Russia. Given the centralisation of power around himself and the lack of any succession planning goodness knows what happens to Russia when he finally departs. Ukraine has a free media and a determination to deal with corruption. It is an absolute tragedy that this should all be threatened because it doesn't suit the world's number one mafioso.
I'm surprised that someone who grew up in the time of the cold war doesn't understand the ideological angle to all this. Zelensky wasn't just a comedian. He starred in a TV show mocking the corruption of Ukrainian politics (and Putin too). He got 72% of the vote! It's all staring at you in great big neon lights. A political chasm has opened up along Europe's longest border. Ukrainians idea of a decent is very different to Mr Putin's.