I'm not sure why a Russian defeat is delusional. They are doing badly as things stand and that is with fairly half-hearted Nato support for Ukraine. I think Estonia has given more military aid than France? It looks like the US has stepped up support in recent days and hopefully a blurring of the defensive/offensive weapons position.
If the west is REALLY desperate to end the war ASAP then what we need is an embargo on Russian oil and gas.
A Russian defeat is not just non-delusional, it is inevitable. Even if it succeeds in taking 30% of Ukrainian territory (now their best case scenario and something that is dropping week by week), they will not control it because 90% of the Ukrainian population will not accept their rule. The only way Russia wins this is if the West buckles, because otherwise this is another Afghanistan at 10x speed for them.
Russia will be looking at the way they 'conquered' Chechnya by destroying its cities and then installing Russia-aligned and -backed strongmen as 'leaders' (really, puppets). The *only* way Russia will control Ukraine is through a similar system.
Not only would that cause even more of a humanitarian disaster than we have already seen; it probably won't work. Chechnya is tiny in comparison to Ukraine, both in terms of territory and population.
I think they were sold a dodgy relic. I’d be looking for a refund.
About as fake as the Russian Patriarch (and KGB bastard) Kirill´s own piety I should think. Indeed I beleive that the Moscow Patriarchy is gong to be expelled from the WCC, which is a happy thought on an otherwise sombre Good Friday.
Indeed as it should be.
Had Epping Walk of Witness this morning for Good Friday which went very well, good mix of Churches in attendance, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist and evangelical
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
I think they were sold a dodgy relic. I’d be looking for a refund.
About as fake as the Russian Patriarch (and KGB bastard) Kirill´s own piety I should think. Indeed I beleive that the Moscow Patriarchy is gong to be expelled from the WCC, which is a happy thought on an otherwise sombre Good Friday.
Indeed as it should be.
Had Epping Walk of Witness this morning for Good Friday which went very well, good mix of Churches in attendance, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist and evangelical
I see the Russians are implausibly claiming their warship has sunk due to a fire and then heavy seas. As this was the warship of "Russian warship go fuck yourself" fame, it seems that if the Russians are to be believed, it has indeed, done exactly that!
I think they were sold a dodgy relic. I’d be looking for a refund.
About as fake as the Russian Patriarch (and KGB bastard) Kirill´s own piety I should think. Indeed I beleive that the Moscow Patriarchy is gong to be expelled from the WCC, which is a happy thought on an otherwise sombre Good Friday.
Indeed as it should be.
Had Epping Walk of Witness this morning for Good Friday which went very well, good mix of Churches in attendance, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist and evangelical
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife Offer me that deathless death Good God, let me give you my life Take me to church
I think they were sold a dodgy relic. I’d be looking for a refund.
About as fake as the Russian Patriarch (and KGB bastard) Kirill´s own piety I should think. Indeed I beleive that the Moscow Patriarchy is gong to be expelled from the WCC, which is a happy thought on an otherwise sombre Good Friday.
Indeed as it should be.
Had Epping Walk of Witness this morning for Good Friday which went very well, good mix of Churches in attendance, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist and evangelical
I don't get the expressed morality on public show here. You support lies and crimes. We've all witnessed that.
I don't understand all the attacks on HYUFD. He is merely a Tory tribalist albeit he takes religion, morality and the British monarchy too seriously IMO. I find a lot of other right wing posters like Leon, Bartholomew Roberts and others considerably worse in terms of what they support both economically and socially. Also there are a lot of smug unrepresentative PB virtue signalling 'centrists' like JosiasJessop who are also utterly ridiculous IMO.
I'm not sure why a Russian defeat is delusional. They are doing badly as things stand and that is with fairly half-hearted Nato support for Ukraine. I think Estonia has given more military aid than France? It looks like the US has stepped up support in recent days and hopefully a blurring of the defensive/offensive weapons position.
If the west is REALLY desperate to end the war ASAP then what we need is an embargo on Russian oil and gas.
Ukraine de-Russified and in the EU and NATO - is this what abject defeat of Putin would look like?
That entire Russian expedition was hilariously mismanaged, particularly the 2nd fleet and its war against North Sea fishermen, so it probably was not a great leap of faith to assume the Russians would lose.
"In the Dogger Bank incident, the Russian fleet mistook a group of British fishing trawlers operating near the Dogger Bank at night for hostile Japanese ships. The fleet fired upon the small civilian vessels, killing several British fishermen; one trawler was sunk while another six were damaged.[15] In confusion, the Russians even fired upon two of their own vessels, killing some of their own men. The firing continued for twenty minutes before Rozhestvensky ordered firing to cease; greater loss of life was avoided only because the Russian gunnery was highly inaccurate."
I see the Russians are implausibly claiming their warship has sunk due to a fire and then heavy seas. As this was the warship of "Russian warship go fuck yourself" fame, it seems that if the Russians are to be believed, it has indeed, done exactly that!
If their warships stay in range of Ukrainian missiles, then it was a fire.
If the Russian warships stay way over the horizon, we'll know they are avoiding Ukrainian missiles.....
I think they were sold a dodgy relic. I’d be looking for a refund.
About as fake as the Russian Patriarch (and KGB bastard) Kirill´s own piety I should think. Indeed I beleive that the Moscow Patriarchy is gong to be expelled from the WCC, which is a happy thought on an otherwise sombre Good Friday.
Indeed as it should be.
Had Epping Walk of Witness this morning for Good Friday which went very well, good mix of Churches in attendance, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist and evangelical
I don't get the expressed morality on public show here. You support lies and crimes. We've all witnessed that.
I don't understand all the attacks on HYUFD. He is merely a Tory tribalist albeit he takes religion, morality and the British monarchy too seriously IMO. I find a lot of other right wing posters like Leon, Bartholomew Roberts and others considerably worse in terms of what they support both economically and socially. Also there are a lot of smug unrepresentative PB virtue signalling 'centrists' like JosiasJessop who are also utterly ridiculous IMO.
Who do Britons want to win the French presidential election?
All Britons: Macron 37% / Le Pen 19%
Con voters: Macron 24% / Le Pen 37% Lab voters: Macron 53% / Le Pen 8%
There they are again, that 20%, same people - Trump, Hard Brexit, now LePen. Will also, if asked, be very keen on the idea of decanting refugees to Rwanda. What a horror show. Should be packed off to Rwanda themselves imo.
Looking at those figures confirms for me why I left the Conservative Party. People who can endorse Le Pen have nothing in common with me. Shows the unfortunate distance and direction the Conservative Party has travelled in its desire to appease and please those who voted for Farage.
I think they were sold a dodgy relic. I’d be looking for a refund.
About as fake as the Russian Patriarch (and KGB bastard) Kirill´s own piety I should think. Indeed I beleive that the Moscow Patriarchy is gong to be expelled from the WCC, which is a happy thought on an otherwise sombre Good Friday.
Indeed as it should be.
Had Epping Walk of Witness this morning for Good Friday which went very well, good mix of Churches in attendance, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist and evangelical
I don't get the expressed morality on public show here. You support lies and crimes. We've all witnessed that.
I don't understand all the attacks on HYUFD. He is merely a Tory tribalist albeit he takes religion, morality and the British monarchy too seriously IMO. I find a lot of other right wing posters like Leon, Bartholomew Roberts and others considerably worse in terms of what they support both economically and socially. Also there are a lot of smug unrepresentative PB virtue signalling 'centrists' like JosiasJessop who are also utterly ridiculous IMO.
LOL. Thanks for your contribution. It is valued.
You foul, horribly rational centrist you! Keep those opinions that align with the vast majority of voters to yourself!
I see the Russians are implausibly claiming their warship has sunk due to a fire and then heavy seas. As this was the warship of "Russian warship go fuck yourself" fame, it seems that if the Russians are to be believed, it has indeed, done exactly that!
I think they were sold a dodgy relic. I’d be looking for a refund.
About as fake as the Russian Patriarch (and KGB bastard) Kirill´s own piety I should think. Indeed I beleive that the Moscow Patriarchy is gong to be expelled from the WCC, which is a happy thought on an otherwise sombre Good Friday.
Indeed as it should be.
Had Epping Walk of Witness this morning for Good Friday which went very well, good mix of Churches in attendance, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist and evangelical
I don't get the expressed morality on public show here. You support lies and crimes. We've all witnessed that.
I don't understand all the attacks on HYUFD. He is merely a Tory tribalist albeit he takes religion, morality and the British monarchy too seriously IMO. I find a lot of other right wing posters like Leon, Bartholomew Roberts and others considerably worse in terms of what they support both economically and socially. Also there are a lot of smug unrepresentative PB virtue signalling 'centrists' like JosiasJessop who are also utterly ridiculous IMO.
HYUFD supported the overturning of the American presidential election and the Orange Order turning to sectarian Civil War in the event of a GFA Border Poll going against them. Both of those are open embraces for autocracy and far more extremist than Tory traditionalists (of which I have several in my family). He deserves to be called put when his autocratic sympathies call for abandonment of Ukraine. But God forbid he is a smug centrist.
I think they were sold a dodgy relic. I’d be looking for a refund.
About as fake as the Russian Patriarch (and KGB bastard) Kirill´s own piety I should think. Indeed I beleive that the Moscow Patriarchy is gong to be expelled from the WCC, which is a happy thought on an otherwise sombre Good Friday.
Indeed as it should be.
Had Epping Walk of Witness this morning for Good Friday which went very well, good mix of Churches in attendance, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist and evangelical
I don't get the expressed morality on public show here. You support lies and crimes. We've all witnessed that.
I don't understand all the attacks on HYUFD. He is merely a Tory tribalist albeit he takes religion, morality and the British monarchy too seriously IMO. I find a lot of other right wing posters like Leon, Bartholomew Roberts and others considerably worse in terms of what they support both economically and socially. Also there are a lot of smug unrepresentative PB virtue signalling 'centrists' like JosiasJessop who are also utterly ridiculous IMO.
LOL. Thanks for your contribution. It is valued.
You foul, horribly rational centrist you! Keep those opinions that align with the vast majority of voters to yourself!
Hey, if there was a GE tomorrow I'd vote Labour. Although I'm expecting some of the Labour 'supporters' on here to tell me they don't want my vote as I stink...
I see the Russians are implausibly claiming their warship has sunk due to a fire and then heavy seas. As this was the warship of "Russian warship go fuck yourself" fame, it seems that if the Russians are to be believed, it has indeed, done exactly that!
"The Moskva did not sink. It was actually promoted because of its great achievements, and it is now proudly serving as a submarine!"
~Whilst all of you who are on the side of the angels in the war root out evil doers and wrong-uns (Leon's list earlier LOL) I have just stuck £100 on Labour taking Barnet at 5/6 with ladbrokes.
Were you disappointed not to make the list? You always struck me as far, far too sensible to fall for Putin's guff unlike the others.
Nah - I am pragmatic though and think a diplomatic solution is needed sooner than later So not sure sinking russian warships whilst understandable is a cause for optimism longer term. As for "lists" it is far better to play the ball not the man and as a anti establishment sort of guy I am always wary of "lists" . Division is never has good as cooperation , good is never pure , evil is a unhelpful label
When a nation chooses to invade its neighbours then the only way to get a sustainable diplomatic solution is to defeat them militarily. Then a sustainable solution can be imposed.
There will be a time when diplomacy is required again and that will be either when Russia achieves its dominance, or when Russia is defeated. The more Russian warships at the bottom of the ocean, the more hope there is for the latter solution leading to a sustainable peace in the future where Russia is scared of ever repeating such a folly again.
i am afraid this is delusional and not realistic
Utter rubbish. Everything that Barty has written there makes absolute sense (reach for your smelling salts Barty!), and there are plenty of historical precedents to support it. I guess you are just hoping for a Russian "victory". A pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.
Who do Britons want to win the French presidential election?
All Britons: Macron 37% / Le Pen 19%
Con voters: Macron 24% / Le Pen 37% Lab voters: Macron 53% / Le Pen 8%
There they are again, that 20%, same people - Trump, Hard Brexit, now LePen. Will also, if asked, be very keen on the idea of decanting refugees to Rwanda. What a horror show. Should be packed off to Rwanda themselves imo.
Looking at those figures confirms for me why I left the Conservative Party. People who can endorse Le Pen have nothing in common with me. Shows the unfortunate distance and direction the Conservative Party has travelled in its desire to appease and please those who voted for Farage.
I agree with you completely (you can share the smelling salts).
Macron is an abject, awful, inappropriate, disaster of a quasi-effective President.
He's also the only option on the ballot and needs to win. Anyone backing Le Pen is either ignorant or has very unpleasant politics, or both.
I'm not sure why a Russian defeat is delusional. They are doing badly as things stand and that is with fairly half-hearted Nato support for Ukraine. I think Estonia has given more military aid than France? It looks like the US has stepped up support in recent days and hopefully a blurring of the defensive/offensive weapons position.
If the west is REALLY desperate to end the war ASAP then what we need is an embargo on Russian oil and gas.
Ukraine de-Russified and in the EU and NATO - is this what abject defeat of Putin would look like?
The end result is likely Ukraine territorially intact, with the exception of Crimea as an independent neutral country, on the path to EU membership with major anti-corruption reforms needed, no NATO membership but muscular guarantees from the US/UK. And the siloviki regime humiliated.
Who do Britons want to win the French presidential election?
All Britons: Macron 37% / Le Pen 19%
Con voters: Macron 24% / Le Pen 37% Lab voters: Macron 53% / Le Pen 8%
There they are again, that 20%, same people - Trump, Hard Brexit, now LePen. Will also, if asked, be very keen on the idea of decanting refugees to Rwanda. What a horror show. Should be packed off to Rwanda themselves imo.
Looking at those figures confirms for me why I left the Conservative Party. People who can endorse Le Pen have nothing in common with me. Shows the unfortunate distance and direction the Conservative Party has travelled in its desire to appease and please those who voted for Farage.
I agree with you completely (you can share the smelling salts).
Macron is an abject, awful, inappropriate, disaster of a quasi-effective President.
He's also the only option on the ballot and needs to win. Anyone backing Le Pen is either ignorant or has very unpleasant politics, or both.
Although I believe you once also voted for Farage, in some respects Le Pen is now more the French Farage than the French Nick Griffin, with economic policies closer to Labour than the Tories. Hence she is also getting nearly half of Melenchon voters support in the runoff
I'm not sure why a Russian defeat is delusional. They are doing badly as things stand and that is with fairly half-hearted Nato support for Ukraine. I think Estonia has given more military aid than France? It looks like the US has stepped up support in recent days and hopefully a blurring of the defensive/offensive weapons position.
If the west is REALLY desperate to end the war ASAP then what we need is an embargo on Russian oil and gas.
Ukraine de-Russified and in the EU and NATO - is this what abject defeat of Putin would look like?
The end result is likely Ukraine territorially intact, with the exception of Crimea as an independent neutral country, on the path to EU membership with major anti-corruption reforms needed, no NATO membership but muscular guarantees from the US/UK. And the siloviki regime humiliated.
If Ukraine comes out territorially intact, with no areas occupied, I'd expect Nato membership to be applied for and granted within months. Why not? To be nice to Putin?
Who do Britons want to win the French presidential election?
All Britons: Macron 37% / Le Pen 19%
Con voters: Macron 24% / Le Pen 37% Lab voters: Macron 53% / Le Pen 8%
There they are again, that 20%, same people - Trump, Hard Brexit, now LePen. Will also, if asked, be very keen on the idea of decanting refugees to Rwanda. What a horror show. Should be packed off to Rwanda themselves imo.
Looking at those figures confirms for me why I left the Conservative Party. People who can endorse Le Pen have nothing in common with me. Shows the unfortunate distance and direction the Conservative Party has travelled in its desire to appease and please those who voted for Farage.
It's a shame. This (let's be kind) "demographic" is a core part of the Johnson GE19 coalition and he needs to keep them sweet. He's taking the party to a bad place.
Of course I've never liked the Tory Party but I've often managed to respect some of its protagonists and see positive things there. This is no longer the case.
Who do Britons want to win the French presidential election?
All Britons: Macron 37% / Le Pen 19%
Con voters: Macron 24% / Le Pen 37% Lab voters: Macron 53% / Le Pen 8%
There they are again, that 20%, same people - Trump, Hard Brexit, now LePen. Will also, if asked, be very keen on the idea of decanting refugees to Rwanda. What a horror show. Should be packed off to Rwanda themselves imo.
Looking at those figures confirms for me why I left the Conservative Party. People who can endorse Le Pen have nothing in common with me. Shows the unfortunate distance and direction the Conservative Party has travelled in its desire to appease and please those who voted for Farage.
I agree with you completely (you can share the smelling salts).
Macron is an abject, awful, inappropriate, disaster of a quasi-effective President.
He's also the only option on the ballot and needs to win. Anyone backing Le Pen is either ignorant or has very unpleasant politics, or both.
Although I believe you once also voted for Farage, in some respects Le Pen is now more the French Farage than the French Nick Griffin, with economic policies closer to Labour than the Tories
For the umpteenth time I never voted for Farage.
I cast a protest vote to get rid of a failed Prime Minister and to expel Farage from the European Parliament.
I have never and would never cast a vote to get Farage into Parliament, I voted to get him out of it.
I see the Russians are implausibly claiming their warship has sunk due to a fire and then heavy seas. As this was the warship of "Russian warship go fuck yourself" fame, it seems that if the Russians are to be believed, it has indeed, done exactly that!
"The Moskva did not sink. It was actually promoted because of its great achievements, and it is now proudly serving as a submarine!"
The other overlooked element to all this is that the name "Moskva" is just Moscow in Russian. The sinking of Moscow is full of dark Dostoyevsky-like symbolism for an imperiled regime.
I imagine the numbers of people successfully 'evacuated' is going to sadly decrease over the coming days and weeks.
(*) According to Ukraine. But I'd take their word on this over Russia's, given the latter's rather odd take on what happened on board the ship.
As I said last night, the death toll is likely to be quite high.
The furious reaction in Russia is borderline insane. All sorts of stupid and counterproductive threats of the most blood curdling kind are being made by the regime. It is so insane that I would be trying to find my old copy of "Protect and Survive". I think the insanity in Russia is getting to nuclear proportions. We should be preparing for the worst. We should also make it totally clear that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia will bring about a major counterstrike.
Has the general public realised yet that the UK hasn’t properly replaced the EU Regional Development Fund? Wales is for example £1bn worse off over three years.
I imagine the numbers of people successfully 'evacuated' is going to sadly decrease over the coming days and weeks.
(*) According to Ukraine. But I'd take their word on this over Russia's, given the latter's rather odd take on what happened on board the ship.
As I said last night, the death toll is likely to be quite high.
The furious reaction in Russia is borderline insane. All sorts of stupid and counterproductive threats of the most blood curdling kind are being made by the regime. It is so insane that I would be trying to find my old copy of "Protect and Survive". I think the insanity in Russia is getting to nuclear proportions. We should be preparing for the worst. We should also make it totally clear that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia will bring about a major counterstrike.
The decrepit way the Russian military is self-destructing, I half expect any attempted Russian nuclear first strike would fizzle out and self-destruct Moscow.
In the interests of accuracy the YouGov results are not as depressing as they might seem and they have been subtly misreported on this thread.
The question was "Who would be best for Britain?"
Even among Tory voters 34% replied didn't know and 30% "about the same" with 24% stating Le Pen and 12% Macron. The question is a peculiar one though and is not the same as "Who do you want to win".
I imagine the numbers of people successfully 'evacuated' is going to sadly decrease over the coming days and weeks.
(*) According to Ukraine. But I'd take their word on this over Russia's, given the latter's rather odd take on what happened on board the ship.
As I said last night, the death toll is likely to be quite high.
The furious reaction in Russia is borderline insane. All sorts of stupid and counterproductive threats of the most blood curdling kind are being made by the regime. It is so insane that I would be trying to find my old copy of "Protect and Survive". I think the insanity in Russia is getting to nuclear proportions. We should be preparing for the worst. We should also make it totally clear that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia will bring about a major counterstrike.
The decrepit way the Russian military is self-destructing, I half expect any attempted Russian nuclear first strike would fizzle out and self-destruct Moscow.
I think it would be inopportune to take the risk. We must assume the worst in our planning and take steps accordingly,
Has the general public realised yet that the UK hasn’t properly replaced the EU Regional Development Fund? Wales is for example £1bn worse off over three years.
Another (Brexit/Johnson) promise broken.
We do not need to send money to Brussels to get a tiny fraction of it back as development money and besides Wales has a Labour government and has done for decades.
If the Welsh government isn't spending their money on development, then maybe they should reconsider sending the same party into the Senedd for the past quarter of a century.
I imagine the numbers of people successfully 'evacuated' is going to sadly decrease over the coming days and weeks.
(*) According to Ukraine. But I'd take their word on this over Russia's, given the latter's rather odd take on what happened on board the ship.
As I said last night, the death toll is likely to be quite high.
The furious reaction in Russia is borderline insane. All sorts of stupid and counterproductive threats of the most blood curdling kind are being made by the regime. It is so insane that I would be trying to find my old copy of "Protect and Survive". I think the insanity in Russia is getting to nuclear proportions. We should be preparing for the worst. We should also make it totally clear that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia will bring about a major counterstrike.
The decrepit way the Russian military is self-destructing, I half expect any attempted Russian nuclear first strike would fizzle out and self-destruct Moscow.
Which they would then mistake for a first strike and retaliate and oops there goes St Petersburg as well
I'm not sure why a Russian defeat is delusional. They are doing badly as things stand and that is with fairly half-hearted Nato support for Ukraine. I think Estonia has given more military aid than France? It looks like the US has stepped up support in recent days and hopefully a blurring of the defensive/offensive weapons position.
If the west is REALLY desperate to end the war ASAP then what we need is an embargo on Russian oil and gas.
Ukraine de-Russified and in the EU and NATO - is this what abject defeat of Putin would look like?
The end result is likely Ukraine territorially intact, with the exception of Crimea as an independent neutral country, on the path to EU membership with major anti-corruption reforms needed, no NATO membership but muscular guarantees from the US/UK. And the siloviki regime humiliated.
If Ukraine comes out territorially intact, with no areas occupied, I'd expect Nato membership to be applied for and granted within months. Why not? To be nice to Putin?
Because UK/USA guarantees are as valuable to Ukraine as NATO membership, and an agreement with the appearance of concessions to Russia is better than unilateral enforcement of terms and no signed agreement.
Has the general public realised yet that the UK hasn’t properly replaced the EU Regional Development Fund? Wales is for example £1bn worse off over three years.
Another (Brexit/Johnson) promise broken.
Yes. The original promise was, I think, to increase the amount rather than cut it ?
I'm not sure why a Russian defeat is delusional. They are doing badly as things stand and that is with fairly half-hearted Nato support for Ukraine. I think Estonia has given more military aid than France? It looks like the US has stepped up support in recent days and hopefully a blurring of the defensive/offensive weapons position.
If the west is REALLY desperate to end the war ASAP then what we need is an embargo on Russian oil and gas.
Ukraine de-Russified and in the EU and NATO - is this what abject defeat of Putin would look like?
The end result is likely Ukraine territorially intact, with the exception of Crimea as an independent neutral country, on the path to EU membership with major anti-corruption reforms needed, no NATO membership but muscular guarantees from the US/UK. And the siloviki regime humiliated.
Yes, I meant ex Crimea. Thing is, if Russia is incapable of holding the territory it's scorched/occupied, and if Putin is judged to be bluffing on the nuclear, then there is a feasible path to a "Ukraine wins, Russia loses" outcome. But do the assumptions hold? I don't know. The nuclear one, you have to be very sure about.
Has the general public realised yet that the UK hasn’t properly replaced the EU Regional Development Fund? Wales is for example £1bn worse off over three years.
Another (Brexit/Johnson) promise broken.
Yes. The original promise was, I think, to increase the amount rather than cut it ?
I can’t remember that. I do remember a promise that the EURD funds would be replaced like for like, at least to begin with.
Not much sympathy for many of these places though, as they did indeed vote to be swindled.
The sinking of the Moskva is to be welcomed, but I do wonder if we are entering the dangerous phase of the “operation” where Russia starts lashing out wildly to create salvage its humiliation and create chaos.
Has the general public realised yet that the UK hasn’t properly replaced the EU Regional Development Fund? Wales is for example £1bn worse off over three years.
Another (Brexit/Johnson) promise broken.
We do not need to send money to Brussels to get a tiny fraction of it back as development money and besides Wales has a Labour government and has done for decades.
If the Welsh government isn't spending their money on development, then maybe they should reconsider sending the same party into the Senedd for the past quarter of a century.
It’s the UK government rather than the Welsh one that has set up a national development fund. It disburses money to all nations and regions.
So wibbling on about the Senedd is at best misinformed, and at worse incoherent.
Not an endorsement in the formal sense (yet), merely a positive appraisal. But it’s another straw in the wind.
I’ve assumed a Keir premiership is odds on for about six months.
He said at the end Starmer deserves to be PM
You can say someone deserves to win without endorsing them. For instance I might want my football team to win but acknowledge the opponents deserved to win.
Has the general public realised yet that the UK hasn’t properly replaced the EU Regional Development Fund? Wales is for example £1bn worse off over three years.
Another (Brexit/Johnson) promise broken.
Yes. The original promise was, I think, to increase the amount rather than cut it ?
I can’t remember that. I do remember a promise that the EURD funds would be replaced like for like, at least to begin with.
Not much sympathy for many of these places though, as they did indeed vote to be swindled.
I'd be more circumspect about revelling in their setback without knowing which areas tended to benefit and what kind of numbers from those areas voted for what. Neither votes nor spending are uniformly distributed.
"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
Not an endorsement in the formal sense (yet), merely a positive appraisal. But it’s another straw in the wind.
I’ve assumed a Keir premiership is odds on for about six months.
He said at the end Starmer deserves to be PM
You can say someone deserves to win without endorsing them. For instance I might want my football team to win but acknowledge the opponents deserved to win.
A small detail, but it exemplifies what appears to be Russian attitudes towards Ukraine. A drill set "in excellent condition" looted from a Ukrainian family is being sold on an internet marketplace in Tver, Russia
Not an endorsement in the formal sense (yet), merely a positive appraisal. But it’s another straw in the wind.
I’ve assumed a Keir premiership is odds on for about six months.
He said at the end Starmer deserves to be PM
It's possible to look at an opponent, think they're a worthy candidate, and that it wouldn't be the end of the world of they won, without thinking they're the best candidate available. Think GHWB vs. Clinton, or perhaps the long duel between Heath and Wilson.
It's a while since we've had an election like that. Maybe, at a pinch, Cameron vs. Miliband.
I imagine the numbers of people successfully 'evacuated' is going to sadly decrease over the coming days and weeks.
(*) According to Ukraine. But I'd take their word on this over Russia's, given the latter's rather odd take on what happened on board the ship.
Given the location of the Sandbox missiles (each one a fueled, fair sized supersonic jet aircraft, pretty much, plus a ton of high explosive ), if they went up, anyone on the bridge would be dead.
A small detail, but it exemplifies what appears to be Russian attitudes towards Ukraine. A drill set "in excellent condition" looted from a Ukrainian family is being sold on an internet marketplace in Tver, Russia
I'm not sure why a Russian defeat is delusional. They are doing badly as things stand and that is with fairly half-hearted Nato support for Ukraine. I think Estonia has given more military aid than France? It looks like the US has stepped up support in recent days and hopefully a blurring of the defensive/offensive weapons position.
If the west is REALLY desperate to end the war ASAP then what we need is an embargo on Russian oil and gas.
Ukraine de-Russified and in the EU and NATO - is this what abject defeat of Putin would look like?
The end result is likely Ukraine territorially intact, with the exception of Crimea as an independent neutral country, on the path to EU membership with major anti-corruption reforms needed, no NATO membership but muscular guarantees from the US/UK. And the siloviki regime humiliated.
If Ukraine comes out territorially intact, with no areas occupied, I'd expect Nato membership to be applied for and granted within months. Why not? To be nice to Putin?
Because UK/USA guarantees are as valuable to Ukraine as NATO membership, and an agreement with the appearance of concessions to Russia is better than unilateral enforcement of terms and no signed agreement.
I see the Russians are implausibly claiming their warship has sunk due to a fire and then heavy seas. As this was the warship of "Russian warship go fuck yourself" fame, it seems that if the Russians are to be believed, it has indeed, done exactly that!
"The Moskva did not sink. It was actually promoted because of its great achievements, and it is now proudly serving as a submarine!"
The other overlooked element to all this is that the name "Moskva" is just Moscow in Russian. The sinking of Moscow is full of dark Dostoyevsky-like symbolism for an imperiled regime.
Hitler had the Deutschland renamed because of the risk of a propaganda disaster if she was sunk.
I’m drinking an excellent cold Kiwi Sauvignon Blanc in the rolling hills of Buckinghamshire. The sun is hot. The world is good. Happy Easter
I must admit I don’t “get” the Chilterns. Too much 1960s suburban development, and the terrain seems to miss something sublime.
Surrey Hills or the Weald are better for getaway-from-Londonism.
Happy Good Friday (which is not a public holiday in the heathenish land of the free).
The Chilterns are magnificent! Great castles, medieval churches, exquisite villages, wonderful walking country - and now red kites wheeling overhead, giving it a touch of wildness
I took my older daughter to Waddesdon Manor yesterday (not far from here). As everyone ogled the insane silverware in the dining room, I impressed the offspring by texting one of my oldest friends, married to a Rothschild, asking him if I could “borrow a fork”. He texted back: “Wife says No”
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
A slightly better exit from Empire too, although the jury might still be out on that.
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’s very worrying because as much as we detest Putin if he can’t find a face saving way out then he might lose the plot . It’s a strange situation because without him having nuclear weapons a total humiliation would be welcome now it’s a weird one where the reality is Putin mustn’t be totally humiliated and so a victory in the se of Ukraine we might have to stomach for the “ greater good”.
I'm not sure why a Russian defeat is delusional. They are doing badly as things stand and that is with fairly half-hearted Nato support for Ukraine. I think Estonia has given more military aid than France? It looks like the US has stepped up support in recent days and hopefully a blurring of the defensive/offensive weapons position.
If the west is REALLY desperate to end the war ASAP then what we need is an embargo on Russian oil and gas.
Ukraine de-Russified and in the EU and NATO - is this what abject defeat of Putin would look like?
The end result is likely Ukraine territorially intact, with the exception of Crimea as an independent neutral country, on the path to EU membership with major anti-corruption reforms needed, no NATO membership but muscular guarantees from the US/UK. And the siloviki regime humiliated.
Yes, I meant ex Crimea. Thing is, if Russia is incapable of holding the territory it's scorched/occupied, and if Putin is judged to be bluffing on the nuclear, then there is a feasible path to a "Ukraine wins, Russia loses" outcome. But do the assumptions hold? I don't know. The nuclear one, you have to be very sure about.
Indeed. Nobody is in control of events in war.
A rapid collapse of the Russian armed forces is certainly a possibility. What is the life expectancy of a Russian tank crew in Ukraine? I would estimate a 10-30% chance of being killed each month! Even pilots have nasty odds. Helicopter crew odds are pretty bad. What about jets? They are being downed and better AA kit is arriving in Ukraine If 1 in 300 jet sorties is shot down that still means almost a one in ten chance of being killed every 30 sorties that you fly. No momentum, no gains, low morale, "tricked" by the commanders over the nature of the operation.
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.
Don't they also have their own land-based anti-ship missile systems?
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Hmmm, I'm not sure I'd endorse either date there. At the early end, the change from "Republic" to "Empire" was largely an internal change, but the Roman Republic was also an empire. At the late end, well, much has been written about an end date for it. I won't get into that here today.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
If it was that good we’d all be speaking French. We don’t. Even where it colonised they’ve abandoned much of the culture - see Indochina
I’d have it in the top 20. Above the Aztec behind the Assyrian
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Just more evil, really. Empires are inherently bad.
Hmmm, I'm not sure I'd endorse either date there. At the early end, the change from "Republic" to "Empire" was largely an internal change, but the Roman Republic was also an empire. At the late end, well, much has been written about an end date for it. I won't get into that here today.
I took my dates from Wikipedia.
I’m in the 1% of PB that seemingly knows bugger all about antiquity.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
That's a good point; although wasn't it *very* short-lived? Also, what long-term effects did it have?
That entire Russian expedition was hilariously mismanaged, particularly the 2nd fleet and its war against North Sea fishermen, so it probably was not a great leap of faith to assume the Russians would lose.
"In the Dogger Bank incident, the Russian fleet mistook a group of British fishing trawlers operating near the Dogger Bank at night for hostile Japanese ships. The fleet fired upon the small civilian vessels, killing several British fishermen; one trawler was sunk while another six were damaged.[15] In confusion, the Russians even fired upon two of their own vessels, killing some of their own men. The firing continued for twenty minutes before Rozhestvensky ordered firing to cease; greater loss of life was avoided only because the Russian gunnery was highly inaccurate."
His latest is quite interesting, as he goes off piste on imperial history whilst interviewing a USA historian about the role of river warfare in the US Civil War. Not perhaps quite all right, but interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un8q2DdzKug
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
A slightly better exit from Empire too, although the jury might still be out on that.
Is 50 years not enough for you?? Most was gone by 1972....
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
That's a good point; although wasn't it *very* short-lived? Also, what long-term effects did it have?
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
A slightly better exit from Empire too, although the jury might still be out on that.
Is 50 years not enough for you?? Most was gone by 1972....
Brunei and Belize endured till the '80s. And Hong Kong went in 1997.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Nazis as the best dressed evil empire?
I don't know. There's a lot to be said for a toga and a military muscle cuirass.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
The Nazi Empire was very temporary.
The Inca were rolled over by a few Spaniards. However they were a locally fantastic cultural and societal peak, whereas the Mongols clearly weren't.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
A slightly better exit from Empire too, although the jury might still be out on that.
Is 50 years not enough for you?? Most was gone by 1972....
Brunei and Belize endured till the '80s. And Hong Kong went in 1997.
Falklands, Gib, ... the former still has an Imperial Satrap aka Governor.
Edit: And they still hand out Imperial orders like smarties in London.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
The Spanish deserve a special mention just for the level of plunder out of the Americas. Between 1500 and 1650, Spain imported 181 tons of gold and 16,000 tons of silver form the New World. That isn't accounting for how much ended up on the Atlantic seabed.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
A slightly better exit from Empire too, although the jury might still be out on that.
Is 50 years not enough for you?? Most was gone by 1972....
Brunei and Belize endured till the '80s. And Hong Kong went in 1997.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
The Portuguse were world wide before the French. Brazil, West Africa, Angola, Mozambique, India, Indonesia, China and a trading port in Japan.
Hmmm, I'm not sure I'd endorse either date there. At the early end, the change from "Republic" to "Empire" was largely an internal change, but the Roman Republic was also an empire. At the late end, well, much has been written about an end date for it. I won't get into that here today.
I took my dates from Wikipedia.
I’m in the 1% of PB that seemingly knows bugger all about antiquity.
I'm in the other 1%
Much depends on what you think of as an 'empire'; it seems the eastern roman empire, whilst still calling itself an empire, was barely much bigger than a country for much of the time.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
That's a good point; although wasn't it *very* short-lived? Also, what long-term effects did it have?
Well, large parts of the world are Francophone to this day, but I wasn't arguing in favour of effect, it was just a reminder that truly global empires came about in that same kind of period. I would probably put Spain and Portugal as first but France and Britain are the ones that perhaps had the larger effects in the east. Though I'm a little sketchy about Spain's influence in the Philippines, I think it might be pretty profound(?) so perhaps that level of reach and importance should first be placed on their shoulders.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
A slightly better exit from Empire too, although the jury might still be out on that.
Is 50 years not enough for you?? Most was gone by 1972....
Brunei and Belize endured till the '80s. And Hong Kong went in 1997.
Wasn’t our very first true colony Bermuda? It is mentioned by Shakespeare. And we still have it
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
The Portuguse were world wide before the French. Brazil, West Africa, Angola, Mozambique, India, Indonesia, China and a trading port in Japan.
Thanks, yes, I briefly mentioned them just now but I'm not quite sure on the Spanish and Portuguese influence in the east, how profound it was. I have half an idea that some Indians have Portuguese names to this day, but I'm really not sure.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
The Nazi Empire was very temporary.
The Inca were rolled over by a few Spaniards. However they were a locally fantastic cultural and societal peak, whereas the Mongols clearly weren't.
Your list, your choices.
Yeah I wouldn’t go MAD and put the Nazis in the top five or anything. That would be morally wrong.
Comments
Not only would that cause even more of a humanitarian disaster than we have already seen; it probably won't work. Chechnya is tiny in comparison to Ukraine, both in terms of territory and population.
And yes, its a pile on. I can't stand hypocrites especially the faux religious ones.
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
Offer me that deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life
Take me to church
"In the Dogger Bank incident, the Russian fleet mistook a group of British fishing trawlers operating near the Dogger Bank at night for hostile Japanese ships. The fleet fired upon the small civilian vessels, killing several British fishermen; one trawler was sunk while another six were damaged.[15] In confusion, the Russians even fired upon two of their own vessels, killing some of their own men. The firing continued for twenty minutes before Rozhestvensky ordered firing to cease; greater loss of life was avoided only because the Russian gunnery was highly inaccurate."
Drachinifel covers it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mdi_Fh9_Ag
If the Russian warships stay way over the horizon, we'll know they are avoiding Ukrainian missiles.....
"The Moskva did not sink. It was actually promoted because of its great achievements, and it is now proudly serving as a submarine!"
Macron is an abject, awful, inappropriate, disaster of a quasi-effective President.
He's also the only option on the ballot and needs to win. Anyone backing Le Pen is either ignorant or has very unpleasant politics, or both.
Of course I've never liked the Tory Party but I've often managed to respect some of its protagonists and see positive things there. This is no longer the case.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/captain-sunk-russian-warship-moskva-100437596.html
I imagine the numbers of people successfully 'evacuated' is going to sadly decrease over the coming days and weeks.
(*) According to Ukraine. But I'd take their word on this over Russia's, given the latter's rather odd take on what happened on board the ship.
I cast a protest vote to get rid of a failed Prime Minister and to expel Farage from the European Parliament.
I have never and would never cast a vote to get Farage into Parliament, I voted to get him out of it.
I’ve assumed a Keir premiership is odds on for about six months.
The furious reaction in Russia is borderline insane. All sorts of stupid and counterproductive threats of the most blood curdling kind are being made by the regime. It is so insane that I would be trying to find my old copy of "Protect and Survive". I think the insanity in Russia is getting to nuclear proportions. We should be preparing for the worst. We should also make it totally clear that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia will bring about a major counterstrike.
Another (Brexit/Johnson) promise broken.
The question was "Who would be best for Britain?"
Even among Tory voters 34% replied didn't know and 30% "about the same" with 24% stating Le Pen and 12% Macron. The question is a peculiar one though and is not the same as "Who do you want to win".
If the Welsh government isn't spending their money on development, then maybe they should reconsider sending the same party into the Senedd for the past quarter of a century.
The original promise was, I think, to increase the amount rather than cut it ?
I do remember a promise that the EURD funds would be replaced like for like, at least to begin with.
Not much sympathy for many of these places though, as they did indeed vote to be swindled.
Against that, they should take Mariupol soon.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/04/zelensky-kyiv-russia-war-ukrainian-survival-interview/629570/
So wibbling on about the Senedd is at best misinformed, and at worse incoherent.
A drill set "in excellent condition" looted from a Ukrainian family is being sold on an internet marketplace in Tver, Russia
"Husband brought it from the special operation in Ukraine"…
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1514948006407282693
It's a while since we've had an election like that. Maybe, at a pinch, Cameron vs. Miliband.
1. British
2. Roman
3. Ottoman
4. Mongol
5. American
6. Chinese
7. Portuguese
8. Spanish
9. Inca
10. Persian
Too much 1960s suburban development, and the terrain seems to miss something sublime.
Surrey Hills or the Weald are better for getaway-from-Londonism.
Happy Good Friday (which is not a public holiday in the heathenish land of the free).
I took my older daughter to Waddesdon Manor yesterday (not far from here). As everyone ogled the insane silverware in the dining room, I impressed the offspring by texting one of my oldest friends, married to a Rothschild, asking him if I could “borrow a fork”. He texted back: “Wife says No”
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
A rapid collapse of the Russian armed forces is certainly a possibility. What is the life expectancy of a Russian tank crew in Ukraine? I would estimate a 10-30% chance of being killed each month! Even pilots have nasty odds. Helicopter crew odds are pretty bad. What about jets? They are being downed and better AA kit is arriving in Ukraine If 1 in 300 jet sorties is shot down that still means almost a one in ten chance of being killed every 30 sorties that you fly. No momentum, no gains, low morale, "tricked" by the commanders over the nature of the operation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Theodoro
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
At the early end, the change from "Republic" to "Empire" was largely an internal change, but the Roman Republic was also an empire.
At the late end, well, much has been written about an end date for it. I won't get into that here today.
I’d have it in the top 20. Above the Aztec behind the Assyrian
I’m in the 1% of PB that seemingly knows bugger all about antiquity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un8q2DdzKug
I see that the original USS The Sullivans (museum ship) has half sunk.
https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/uss-the-sullivans-appears-to-be-sinking-at-buffalo-and-erie-county-naval-and-military-park
a chief remoaner!
The Inca were rolled over by a few Spaniards. However they were a locally fantastic cultural and societal peak, whereas the Mongols clearly weren't.
Your list, your choices.
Edit: And they still hand out Imperial orders like smarties in London.
1. 1947
2. 1956
3. 1967
4. 1982
5. 1997
Much depends on what you think of as an 'empire'; it seems the eastern roman empire, whilst still calling itself an empire, was barely much bigger than a country for much of the time.
I see Wiki has a brilliant animated gif of how it changed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#/media/File:Byzantine_Empire_animated.gif
500 years….
But number 7 or 8? Arguable
Is there news about casualties on the Moskva, yet?
I've just seen a note that a Turkish ship rescued around 50:
https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkish-ship-rescues-over-50-russian-sailors-from-naval-cruiser-moskva-56382?utm_source=other&utm_medium=rss