Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Nobody is in control of events when a war starts. Although I'll admit to a strong emotional biase my reading of numerous reports and credible analyses is that the Russians have been heavily defeated so far and that although they have certain advantages for the southern based phase they are weakening whilst Ukraine is strengthening. I'd be very surprised if a comprehensive defeat of Russia and roll-back doesn't happen in the next month or two. The other thing to consider is that the break away statelets have been psycho run hell holes so how much de-Russification has taken place over past few years? I'd wager that if there was a properly run set of votes Ukraine would gain the 2014 territory and I'm not sure I'd bet on Crimea.
If you lived in the disputed territories, would you vote to be part of the country with $1trn of international aid and goodwill coming down the line, or the country with $1trn of sanctions staying in place for the next few years?
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Nobody is in control of events when a war starts. Although I'll admit to a strong emotional biase my reading of numerous reports and credible analyses is that the Russians have been heavily defeated so far and that although they have certain advantages for the southern based phase they are weakening whilst Ukraine is strengthening. I'd be very surprised if a comprehensive defeat of Russia and roll-back doesn't happen in the next month or two. The other thing to consider is that the break away statelets have been psycho run hell holes so how much de-Russification has taken place over past few years? I'd wager that if there was a properly run set of votes Ukraine would gain the 2014 territory and I'm not sure I'd bet on Crimea.
If you lived in the disputed territories, would you vote to be part of the country with $1trn of international aid and goodwill coming down the line, or the country with $1trn of sanctions staying in place for the next few years?
Spot on. Given the likely amount of money that will flow into Ukraine together with the decent possibility of at least some form of formal relationship with the EU, Ukraine is going to look a much better bet for those people than it did pre-war.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
Does anyone know when the exit polls come out for France?
7pm UK time - not exit polls but projections based on a sample of votes already counted (big cities close 8pm French time, everywhere else 7pm local time).
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
Yet again, the point flies merrily over your head, on its way to someone more receptive.
Putin wants a large area of eastern Europe under his thumb. That is what will 'satisfy him' in the medium term. If you are willing to let him take them over, as Dura_Ace apparently is, then fair enough. But even then you have to ask what he will want next when he knows this tactic works.
He has made it very clear that Ukraine is just the start. We have two choices: to try to stop him now, using Ukraine as a proxy; or let him take over Ukraine, then start on Transnistria, Moldova, the Baltic states and the rest.
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
Yet again, the point flies merrily over your head, on its way to someone more receptive.
Putin wants a large area of eastern Europe under his thumb. That is what will 'satisfy him' in the medium term. If you are willing to let him take them over, as Dura_Ace apparently is, then fair enough. But even then you have to ask what he will want next when he knows this tactic works.
He has made it very clear that Ukraine is just the start. We have two choices: to try to stop him now, using Ukraine as a proxy; or let him take over Ukraine, then start on Transnistria, Moldova, the Baltic states and the rest.
I'm swinging back to the view that we should explicitly join the war on Ukraine's side. It will bring the war to a conclusion more quickly, minimising the loss and suffering for Ukrainian civilians, and I think that by extending our nuclear umbrella over Ukraine it makes Russian use of nuclear weapons less likely.
Doesn't Dugin say that Russia should dominate from Vladivostok to Dublin? That doesn't sound as if he wants Putin to stop with part of the Ukraine. But that he might be willing to give Japan the territory seized at the end of World War II.
(Has any reporter asked the Irish government about that?)
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
Melanchon voters sitting on their hands?
Maybe, we will find out at 7pm. Macron should still win but might be a bit closer if they have stayed at home mainly
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
I realise I am risk of talking my own book here but I don't see how that is positive for Macron - he needs switchers from the other parties eliminated to come to his side.
Genuinely think Everton could be going down for the first time in living memory for all but those aged 75+. Really could do with something out of today’s game, and that is highly unlikely.
IIRC, Everton has the longest unbroken run in the top division of English football.
Nope, that would be Arsenal.
It's Arsenal by several decades. (For this reason I still start every season with the number one ambition of Arsenal staying up). IIRC they overtook Sunderland, the previous holders, about 30 or 40 years ago.
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
I realise I am risk of talking my own book here but I don't see how that is positive for Macron - he needs switchers from the other parties eliminated to come to his side.
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
I realise I am risk of talking my own book here but I don't see how that is positive for Macron - he needs switchers from the other parties eliminated to come to his side.
Because he has a round one lead.
The best possible scenario for Macron is that turnout is simply those people who voted Macron in round one, and those who voted Le Pen in round two.
F1: reasonably good race. Next up is Miami, which will be in the late(ish) evening, UK time.
Scrawling the post-race tosh now.
We booked our flights for Miami in anticipation of the GP but eventually the cheapest 3 day ticket you could buy was $1800!! Compared to Austin General Admission at $150 it was a no go. Instead we have spent $70 for the best seats in the house at Darlington Raceway in South Carolina for the Nascar race on the same weekend. Should be a hoot. I can take my Maga hat, which a work colleague bought me back from a US trip in early 2016 as an ironic present!! At least, it seemed ironic in 2016...
Ditch the hat, but if possible check out racing reportage of Marty Smith & Ian McGee aka Marty & McGee. These guys are serious fans, esp. McGee.
For sample of their "work" from last year, check this out:
Highlight of their radio show is "Hillbilly Headlines". Last show they discussed upcoming race featuring grandson of Dale Earnhardt Sr. as well as extended discussion of potamology.
If you’re going to the NASCAR, get a “Let’s Go Brandon” hat.
Yep, that would probably be a smart call. If the crowd are all Trumpist loons it's best to blend in.
F1: reasonably good race. Next up is Miami, which will be in the late(ish) evening, UK time.
Scrawling the post-race tosh now.
We booked our flights for Miami in anticipation of the GP but eventually the cheapest 3 day ticket you could buy was $1800!! Compared to Austin General Admission at $150 it was a no go. Instead we have spent $70 for the best seats in the house at Darlington Raceway in South Carolina for the Nascar race on the same weekend. Should be a hoot. I can take my Maga hat, which a work colleague bought me back from a US trip in early 2016 as an ironic present!! At least, it seemed ironic in 2016...
Ditch the hat, but if possible check out racing reportage of Marty Smith & Ian McGee aka Marty & McGee. These guys are serious fans, esp. McGee.
For sample of their "work" from last year, check this out:
Highlight of their radio show is "Hillbilly Headlines". Last show they discussed upcoming race featuring grandson of Dale Earnhardt Sr. as well as extended discussion of potamology.
If you’re going to the NASCAR, get a “Let’s Go Brandon” hat.
Yep, that would probably be a smart call. If the crowd are all Trumpist loons it's best to blend in.
I'll lend you mine if you go, along with the T-shirt
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
I realise I am risk of talking my own book here but I don't see how that is positive for Macron - he needs switchers from the other parties eliminated to come to his side.
They both do if that's not stating the obvious
Macron has always been a cert. We have been here so many times before.
Genuinely think Everton could be going down for the first time in living memory for all but those aged 75+. Really could do with something out of today’s game, and that is highly unlikely.
IIRC, Everton has the longest unbroken run in the top division of English football.
F1: reasonably good race. Next up is Miami, which will be in the late(ish) evening, UK time.
Scrawling the post-race tosh now.
We booked our flights for Miami in anticipation of the GP but eventually the cheapest 3 day ticket you could buy was $1800!! Compared to Austin General Admission at $150 it was a no go. Instead we have spent $70 for the best seats in the house at Darlington Raceway in South Carolina for the Nascar race on the same weekend. Should be a hoot. I can take my Maga hat, which a work colleague bought me back from a US trip in early 2016 as an ironic present!! At least, it seemed ironic in 2016...
Ditch the hat, but if possible check out racing reportage of Marty Smith & Ian McGee aka Marty & McGee. These guys are serious fans, esp. McGee.
For sample of their "work" from last year, check this out:
Highlight of their radio show is "Hillbilly Headlines". Last show they discussed upcoming race featuring grandson of Dale Earnhardt Sr. as well as extended discussion of potamology.
If you’re going to the NASCAR, get a “Let’s Go Brandon” hat.
Yep, that would probably be a smart call. If the crowd are all Trumpist loons it's best to blend in.
I'll lend you mine if you go, along with the T-shirt
I will attend in AOC's "Tax The Rich" dress. That will challenge those NASCAR chunks on a number of levels.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
He doesn't even need to rebuild his army to take over other countries. His favoured approach so far is to interfere politically - he has spent (and mis-spent) a great deal of treasure on doing that. If he wins in Ukraine, he can say to the states he threatens: "Vote for my candidate or what happened to Ukraine may just happen to you."
Of course he would not be as blatant as that; but pro-Russian candidates and parties might well find such fear a useful recruiting ground. "We can save you from war! Look at how the west let Ukraine down; our future lies with the east!"
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
I realise I am risk of talking my own book here but I don't see how that is positive for Macron - he needs switchers from the other parties eliminated to come to his side.
Because he has a round one lead.
The best possible scenario for Macron is that turnout is simply those people who voted Macron in round one, and those who voted Le Pen in round two.
That would only give him a victory margin of 5%.
A win yes but hardly a resounding endorsement for his second term
According to four opinion polls carried out this Sunday by four renowned polling institutes in France, Emmanuel Macron is credited with 55% to 58 of the votes, while Marine Le Pen would collect between 42 and 45% of the votes, learned La Libre and LN24 . These results come from surveys carried out on the Internet with citizens who voted before 5 p.m.
Here are the results according to each polling institute
Harris Interactive: 55% for Emmanuel Macron - 45% for Marine Le Pen
Ifop: 56% for Emmanuel Macron - 44% for Marine Le Pen
OpinionWay: 58% for Emmanuel Macron - 42% for Marine Le Pen
BVA: 57% for Emmanuel Macron - 43% for Marine Le Pen
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
I realise I am risk of talking my own book here but I don't see how that is positive for Macron - he needs switchers from the other parties eliminated to come to his side.
Because he has a round one lead.
The best possible scenario for Macron is that turnout is simply those people who voted Macron in round one, and those who voted Le Pen in round two.
Which it won't be because, if that is the case, turnout would obviously be way down.
In any event, Macron needed to win over the other parties voters because he's actually at a disadvantage when it comes to voters who would be said to naturally share his views. Le Pen's "natural" (i.e. voters who share her views) vote share going into Round 2 was 32.4% (MLP + Zemmour + DuPont-Aignan) vs Macron's c. 25% share.
The best result for Macron would be a high turnout because it would suggest that the eliminated candidates' voters were coming out to stop Le Pen. That doesn't look to be happening.
According to four opinion polls carried out this Sunday by four renowned polling institutes in France, Emmanuel Macron is credited with 55% to 58 of the votes, while Marine Le Pen would collect between 42 and 45% of the votes, learned La Libre and LN24 . These results come from surveys carried out on the Internet with citizens who voted before 5 p.m.
Here are the results according to each polling institute
Harris Interactive: 55% for Emmanuel Macron - 45% for Marine Le Pen
Ifop: 56% for Emmanuel Macron - 44% for Marine Le Pen
OpinionWay: 58% for Emmanuel Macron - 42% for Marine Le Pen
BVA: 57% for Emmanuel Macron - 43% for Marine Le Pen
Much as final polls predicted then.
A clear Macron win but Le Pen much closer to him than in 2017 too
According to four opinion polls carried out this Sunday by four renowned polling institutes in France, Emmanuel Macron is credited with 55% to 58 of the votes, while Marine Le Pen would collect between 42 and 45% of the votes, learned La Libre and LN24 . These results come from surveys carried out on the Internet with citizens who voted before 5 p.m.
Here are the results according to each polling institute
Harris Interactive: 55% for Emmanuel Macron - 45% for Marine Le Pen
Ifop: 56% for Emmanuel Macron - 44% for Marine Le Pen
OpinionWay: 58% for Emmanuel Macron - 42% for Marine Le Pen
BVA: 57% for Emmanuel Macron - 43% for Marine Le Pen
It's in line with my forecast of Macron 57%, Le Pen 43%
My forecast is NOT to be relied on for betting or any other purposes, DYOR
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
I realise I am risk of talking my own book here but I don't see how that is positive for Macron - he needs switchers from the other parties eliminated to come to his side.
Because he has a round one lead.
The best possible scenario for Macron is that turnout is simply those people who voted Macron in round one, and those who voted Le Pen in round two.
That would only give him a victory margin of 5%.
A win yes but hardly a resounding endorsement for his second term
At the end of the day a win's a win. Just ask Theresa May lol!
Genuinely think Everton could be going down for the first time in living memory for all but those aged 75+. Really could do with something out of today’s game, and that is highly unlikely.
IIRC, Everton has the longest unbroken run in the top division of English football.
Nope, that would be Arsenal.
It's Arsenal by several decades. (For this reason I still start every season with the number one ambition of Arsenal staying up). IIRC they overtook Sunderland, the previous holders, about 30 or 40 years ago.
Although, wasn't Arsenal's post-WW1 'promotion' achieved by some sort of political chicanery, to the detriment of Barnsley? So, by standard football fan logic, Barnsley are the true holders of that record.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
He doesn't even need to rebuild his army to take over other countries. His favoured approach so far is to interfere politically - he has spent (and mis-spent) a great deal of treasure on doing that. If he wins in Ukraine, he can say to the states he threatens: "Vote for my candidate or what happened to Ukraine may just happen to you."
Of course he would not be as blatant as that; but pro-Russian candidates and parties might well find such fear a useful recruiting ground. "We can save you from war! Look at how the west let Ukraine down; our future lies with the east!"
Which is why the West need to make it very clear that Putin needs to be defeated, and be seen to have been defeated.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
F1: reasonably good race. Next up is Miami, which will be in the late(ish) evening, UK time.
Scrawling the post-race tosh now.
We booked our flights for Miami in anticipation of the GP but eventually the cheapest 3 day ticket you could buy was $1800!! Compared to Austin General Admission at $150 it was a no go. Instead we have spent $70 for the best seats in the house at Darlington Raceway in South Carolina for the Nascar race on the same weekend. Should be a hoot. I can take my Maga hat, which a work colleague bought me back from a US trip in early 2016 as an ironic present!! At least, it seemed ironic in 2016...
Ditch the hat, but if possible check out racing reportage of Marty Smith & Ian McGee aka Marty & McGee. These guys are serious fans, esp. McGee.
For sample of their "work" from last year, check this out:
Highlight of their radio show is "Hillbilly Headlines". Last show they discussed upcoming race featuring grandson of Dale Earnhardt Sr. as well as extended discussion of potamology.
I'll not lie, SS2, I had to look 'potamology' up. Every day is a school day on PB!! Thank you.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
He doesn't even need to rebuild his army to take over other countries. His favoured approach so far is to interfere politically - he has spent (and mis-spent) a great deal of treasure on doing that. If he wins in Ukraine, he can say to the states he threatens: "Vote for my candidate or what happened to Ukraine may just happen to you."
Of course he would not be as blatant as that; but pro-Russian candidates and parties might well find such fear a useful recruiting ground. "We can save you from war! Look at how the west let Ukraine down; our future lies with the east!"
Which is why the West need to make it very clear that Putin needs to be defeated, and be seen to have been defeated.
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
I realise I am risk of talking my own book here but I don't see how that is positive for Macron - he needs switchers from the other parties eliminated to come to his side.
Because he has a round one lead.
The best possible scenario for Macron is that turnout is simply those people who voted Macron in round one, and those who voted Le Pen in round two.
That would only give him a victory margin of 5%.
A win yes but hardly a resounding endorsement for his second term
At the end of the day a win's a win. Just ask Theresa May lol!
Because her second term was then such a resounding success!
A clear mandate for your second term eg for Thatcher in 1983, Blair in 2001 or Reagan in 1984 is generally much better
According to four opinion polls carried out this Sunday by four renowned polling institutes in France, Emmanuel Macron is credited with 55% to 58 of the votes, while Marine Le Pen would collect between 42 and 45% of the votes, learned La Libre and LN24 . These results come from surveys carried out on the Internet with citizens who voted before 5 p.m.
Here are the results according to each polling institute
Harris Interactive: 55% for Emmanuel Macron - 45% for Marine Le Pen
Ifop: 56% for Emmanuel Macron - 44% for Marine Le Pen
OpinionWay: 58% for Emmanuel Macron - 42% for Marine Le Pen
BVA: 57% for Emmanuel Macron - 43% for Marine Le Pen
Well, if that is the case, that's my tip off Mind you, it would be a good day for the world so will take it
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
F1: reasonably good race. Next up is Miami, which will be in the late(ish) evening, UK time.
Scrawling the post-race tosh now.
We booked our flights for Miami in anticipation of the GP but eventually the cheapest 3 day ticket you could buy was $1800!! Compared to Austin General Admission at $150 it was a no go. Instead we have spent $70 for the best seats in the house at Darlington Raceway in South Carolina for the Nascar race on the same weekend. Should be a hoot. I can take my Maga hat, which a work colleague bought me back from a US trip in early 2016 as an ironic present!! At least, it seemed ironic in 2016...
Ditch the hat, but if possible check out racing reportage of Marty Smith & Ian McGee aka Marty & McGee. These guys are serious fans, esp. McGee.
For sample of their "work" from last year, check this out:
Highlight of their radio show is "Hillbilly Headlines". Last show they discussed upcoming race featuring grandson of Dale Earnhardt Sr. as well as extended discussion of potamology.
If you’re going to the NASCAR, get a “Let’s Go Brandon” hat.
Yep, that would probably be a smart call. If the crowd are all Trumpist loons it's best to blend in.
I'll lend you mine if you go, along with the T-shirt
I will attend in AOC's "Tax The Rich" dress. That will challenge those NASCAR chunks on a number of levels.
I think you might find some unintended consequences from that. I wouldn't want some shortsighted hillbilly to take you for some mighty-fine lady...
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
I realise I am risk of talking my own book here but I don't see how that is positive for Macron - he needs switchers from the other parties eliminated to come to his side.
Because he has a round one lead.
The best possible scenario for Macron is that turnout is simply those people who voted Macron in round one, and those who voted Le Pen in round two.
The results aren't cumulative though. If a low turnout is positive for Macron it's not because he has a lead, but because his support skews more towards old people who are more likely to vote.
According to four opinion polls carried out this Sunday by four renowned polling institutes in France, Emmanuel Macron is credited with 55% to 58 of the votes, while Marine Le Pen would collect between 42 and 45% of the votes, learned La Libre and LN24 . These results come from surveys carried out on the Internet with citizens who voted before 5 p.m.
Here are the results according to each polling institute
Harris Interactive: 55% for Emmanuel Macron - 45% for Marine Le Pen
Ifop: 56% for Emmanuel Macron - 44% for Marine Le Pen
OpinionWay: 58% for Emmanuel Macron - 42% for Marine Le Pen
BVA: 57% for Emmanuel Macron - 43% for Marine Le Pen
Much as final polls predicted then.
A clear Macron win but Le Pen much closer to him than in 2017 too
Although, just thinking about this slightly more, out of line with what the Western DOM-TOMs actual vote shares were reported to be, which is interesting.
Genuinely think Everton could be going down for the first time in living memory for all but those aged 75+. Really could do with something out of today’s game, and that is highly unlikely.
IIRC, Everton has the longest unbroken run in the top division of English football.
Nope, that would be Arsenal.
It's Arsenal by several decades. (For this reason I still start every season with the number one ambition of Arsenal staying up). IIRC they overtook Sunderland, the previous holders, about 30 or 40 years ago.
Although, wasn't Arsenal's post-WW1 'promotion' achieved by some sort of political chicanery, to the detriment of Barnsley? So, by standard football fan logic, Barnsley are the true holders of that record.
"In 1919, The Football League controversially voted to promote The Arsenal, instead of relegated local rivals Tottenham Hotspur, into the newly enlarged First Division, despite only finishing fifth in the Second Division's last pre-war season of 1914–15. Later that year, The Arsenal started dropping "The" in official documents, gradually shifting its name for the final time towards Arsenal, as it is generally known today." # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C.
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
And he mainly supplies that gas (and oil?) to western Europe, who are desperately trying to find alternate sources. Whereas he will find it fairly difficult - and expensive - to provide alternate customers with the gas. He is also unlikely to get as much money for that oil and gas from alternate customers.
Worse, as I believe RCS has pointed out, Russia relies on western providers for much of its oil and gas extraction kit. Without access to that kit, it will get increasingly expensive to extract those resources.
Russia does appear to be screwed in the medium term, even if they were to 'win' in Ukraine.
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
Sanctions affect Russia's ability to buy things, not their ability to sell oil.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
I think there's some doubting the ability, given how poorly Russia's other military equipment has performed.
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
Sanctions affect Russia's ability to buy things, not their ability to sell oil.
There's a risk it could inadvertently kick start Russian domestic industry.
Lowest turnout at this time in a French Presidential election runoff since 1969 the BBC reports
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
I realise I am risk of talking my own book here but I don't see how that is positive for Macron - he needs switchers from the other parties eliminated to come to his side.
Because he has a round one lead.
The best possible scenario for Macron is that turnout is simply those people who voted Macron in round one, and those who voted Le Pen in round two.
The results aren't cumulative though. If a low turnout is positive for Macron it's not because he has a lead, but because his support skews more towards old people who are more likely to vote.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
So what would you say if Poland and the Baltics equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons ?
Might be worth remembering that the initial R1 polls on the day had Macron and Le Pen level. His number increased as more data came in from the bigger conurbations. Might be different for R2, though, as there are only two candidates.
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
Sanctions affect Russia's ability to buy things, not their ability to sell oil.
Buy things like oil extraction machinery, alongisde spares & support for such.
Rather like the now unsupported Western aeroplanes, they’ll gradually deteriorate, and end up being cannibalised to keep the remaining fleet operational.
Doesn't Dugin say that Russia should dominate from Vladivostok to Dublin? That doesn't sound as if he wants Putin to stop with part of the Ukraine. But that he might be willing to give Japan the territory seized at the end of World War II.
(Has any reporter asked the Irish government about that?)
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
Sanctions affect Russia's ability to buy things, not their ability to sell oil.
Buy things like oil extraction machinery, alongisde spares & support for such.
Rather like the now unsupported Western aeroplanes, they’ll gradually deteriorate, and end up being cannibalised to keep the remaining fleet operational.
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
Sanctions affect Russia's ability to buy things, not their ability to sell oil.
There's a risk it could inadvertently kick start Russian domestic industry.
They have had thirty years to do that. For much of the last twenty years, they've had stacks of money coming in from their resources, along with a highly-educated population and some great engineering companies. They could have invested in their engineering and technology.
They should have looked at South Korea post-1953 and asked themselves how such a small country - with few of the advantages Russia has - turned itself from a ruined mess into an economic power. The answer is through difficult, hard work. Instead the Russian regime chose to just enrich themselves.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
So what would you say if Poland and the Baltics equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons ?
I'd say, I see Poland and the Baltics have equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons. Good for them, and I am glad NPT enforcement is not part of my job description
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
Sanctions affect Russia's ability to buy things, not their ability to sell oil.
There's a risk it could inadvertently kick start Russian domestic industry.
What domestic industry ? Since forever they've depended on foreign industrialists. Britain and the US in 19th C Russia; the US under Lenin and Stalin; Germany more recently.
Are the Russians still able to send oil and gas through their pipelines to Europe? Because after all quite a lot of them cross Ukraine...
Yes. Those pipelines are currently Ukraine’s largest source of foreign currency. Shame it’s also sending money to Russia.
I shouldn't laugh, but...that's crazy.
The politics of pipelines is quite something.
There’s good reason that Nord Stream 2 was described as “The F*** Ukraine Pipeline”, and Russia has worked hard to stop construction of pipelines and terminals across Europe that would allow increasing imports from the Middle East or the USA. Led of course, by European politicians such as Schroeder, who sold his soul and his country out for a few million rubles.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
There's a risk it could inadvertently kick start Russian domestic industry.
They have had thirty years to do that. For much of the last twenty years, they've had stacks of money coming in from their resources, along with a highly-educated population and some great engineering companies. They could have invested in their engineering and technology.
They should have looked at South Korea post-1953 and asked themselves how such a small country - with few of the advantages Russia has - turned itself from a ruined mess into an economic power. The answer is through difficult, hard work. Instead the Russian regime chose to just enrich themselves.
Russia officially has had a policy of progression towards self-reliance in strategic industries for some while now. The trouble is that the officials in charge either stole the money or were incompetent and so lied and cheated (i.e. by importing all the parts for a Czech-designed tractor to assemble in Russia while claiming it was an indigenously built tractor).
Some economists doubt that a kleptocratic mafiosi can, because of their very nature, ever have the capability to build up and manage complex R&D and manufacturing processes
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
Sanctions affect Russia's ability to buy things, not their ability to sell oil.
There's a risk it could inadvertently kick start Russian domestic industry.
They have had thirty years to do that. For much of the last twenty years, they've had stacks of money coming in from their resources, along with a highly-educated population and some great engineering companies. They could have invested in their engineering and technology.
They should have looked at South Korea post-1953 and asked themselves how such a small country - with few of the advantages Russia has - turned itself from a ruined mess into an economic power. The answer is through difficult, hard work. Instead the Russian regime chose to just enrich themselves.
except that is mainly rubbish given they have developed missile technology that now threatens the world .
There's a risk it could inadvertently kick start Russian domestic industry.
They have had thirty years to do that. For much of the last twenty years, they've had stacks of money coming in from their resources, along with a highly-educated population and some great engineering companies. They could have invested in their engineering and technology.
They should have looked at South Korea post-1953 and asked themselves how such a small country - with few of the advantages Russia has - turned itself from a ruined mess into an economic power. The answer is through difficult, hard work. Instead the Russian regime chose to just enrich themselves.
Russia officially has had a policy of progression towards self-reliance in strategic industries for some while now. The trouble is that the officials in charge either stole the money or were incompetent and so lied and cheated (i.e. by importing all the parts for a Czech-designed tractor to assemble in Russia while claiming it was an indigenously built tractor).
Some economists doubt that a kleptocratic mafiosi can, because of their very nature, ever have the capability to build up and manage complex R&D and manufacturing processes
That tractor story was funny.
The Kremlin thinks that Russia now has self-reliance in tractor production (and many other products, including military assets), but the reality is that they have no capability at all under Western sanctions, because the whole damn thing was imported!
There's a risk it could inadvertently kick start Russian domestic industry.
They have had thirty years to do that. For much of the last twenty years, they've had stacks of money coming in from their resources, along with a highly-educated population and some great engineering companies. They could have invested in their engineering and technology.
They should have looked at South Korea post-1953 and asked themselves how such a small country - with few of the advantages Russia has - turned itself from a ruined mess into an economic power. The answer is through difficult, hard work. Instead the Russian regime chose to just enrich themselves.
Russia officially has had a policy of progression towards self-reliance in strategic industries for some while now. The trouble is that the officials in charge either stole the money or were incompetent and so lied and cheated (i.e. by importing all the parts for a Czech-designed tractor to assemble in Russia while claiming it was an indigenously built tractor).
Some economists doubt that a kleptocratic mafiosi can, because of their very nature, ever have the capability to build up and manage complex R&D and manufacturing processes
There's a risk it could inadvertently kick start Russian domestic industry.
They have had thirty years to do that. For much of the last twenty years, they've had stacks of money coming in from their resources, along with a highly-educated population and some great engineering companies. They could have invested in their engineering and technology.
They should have looked at South Korea post-1953 and asked themselves how such a small country - with few of the advantages Russia has - turned itself from a ruined mess into an economic power. The answer is through difficult, hard work. Instead the Russian regime chose to just enrich themselves.
Russia officially has had a policy of progression towards self-reliance in strategic industries for some while now. The trouble is that the officials in charge either stole the money or were incompetent and so lied and cheated (i.e. by importing all the parts for a Czech-designed tractor to assemble in Russia while claiming it was an indigenously built tractor).
Some economists doubt that a kleptocratic mafiosi can, because of their very nature, ever have the capability to build up and manage complex R&D and manufacturing processes
Russia has zero ability to produce complex electronics. And the kit required to make complex electronics is all German or Japanese (or to a lesser extent American), and is therefore sanctioned.
Ultimately, if the makers of capital goods (i.e. the things that make things) are resolute in continuing sanctions, then the Russians will find import substitution very hard indeed.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
I don't remember the Cold War ending with the West giving the USSR everything it wanted.
I'm not arguing we march on Moscow. I'm simply arguing we enforce the international rules that Russia has signed up to. I think he's more likely to walk away without using nukes if he knows that Moscow and St Petersburg get nuked if he crosses that line.
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
Sanctions affect Russia's ability to buy things, not their ability to sell oil.
There's a risk it could inadvertently kick start Russian domestic industry.
They have had thirty years to do that. For much of the last twenty years, they've had stacks of money coming in from their resources, along with a highly-educated population and some great engineering companies. They could have invested in their engineering and technology.
They should have looked at South Korea post-1953 and asked themselves how such a small country - with few of the advantages Russia has - turned itself from a ruined mess into an economic power. The answer is through difficult, hard work. Instead the Russian regime chose to just enrich themselves.
except that is mainly rubbish given they have developed missile technology that now threatens the world .
They developed that missile technology in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
If you want to look at the mess they've been in recently, look at the Angara rocket (four launches in eight years) or the fraudulent mess of the Vostochny Cosmodrome. This is in spaceflight, something they were leading the world in.
Even if it ends on a stalemate in current positions, sanctions on Russia are not going to go. Hence Putin has already lost.
The Russian budget has record surpluses thanks to continuing oil and gas revenue, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that sanctions alone mean that he has lost.
Sanctions affect Russia's ability to buy things, not their ability to sell oil.
There's a risk it could inadvertently kick start Russian domestic industry.
They have had thirty years to do that. For much of the last twenty years, they've had stacks of money coming in from their resources, along with a highly-educated population and some great engineering companies. They could have invested in their engineering and technology.
They should have looked at South Korea post-1953 and asked themselves how such a small country - with few of the advantages Russia has - turned itself from a ruined mess into an economic power. The answer is through difficult, hard work. Instead the Russian regime chose to just enrich themselves.
except that is mainly rubbish given they have developed missile technology that now threatens the world .
That technology relies on buying sensors and other electronics from Japan, Taiwan, etc.
Now, I'm sure China will continue sanction busting. And I'm sure that they could get stuff sent via India at a pinch. But the idea that their equipment is not utterly dependent on developed world components is utterly for the bids.
Might be worth remembering that the initial R1 polls on the day had Macron and Le Pen level. His number increased as more data came in from the bigger conurbations. Might be different for R2, though, as there are only two candidates.
Useful tip for in play betting. A reverse ferret has saved my stake on a number of election nights in play.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
#Ukraine: As a few of the NLAW launchers delivered to Ukraine by the UK have ran into battery issues (Running out too fast, or not functioning well in the cold), well, as ever, local forces are coming up with solutions.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
Not my thing, but don't nuclear weapons require complex, expensive and frequent maintenance to remain functional? Indeed a factor in why Ukraine gave theirs up, though not the only one.
Comments
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
Putin wants a large area of eastern Europe under his thumb. That is what will 'satisfy him' in the medium term. If you are willing to let him take them over, as Dura_Ace apparently is, then fair enough. But even then you have to ask what he will want next when he knows this tactic works.
He has made it very clear that Ukraine is just the start. We have two choices: to try to stop him now, using Ukraine as a proxy; or let him take over Ukraine, then start on Transnistria, Moldova, the Baltic states and the rest.
'New turnout figures have been released as we head towards the end of the voting day, showing turnout was 63.23% at 17:00 (15:00 GMT).
Such a low turnout figure has not been registered at this stage since 1969, BFMTV reports; it is also lower than the turnout at the same time two weeks ago in the first round of the election when it was around 65%, BFM says. Five years ago it was 65.3% at this time.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61151604
Any thoughts on the NI elections?
The melee just before half time though, that was quite normal for a derby match.
(Has any reporter asked the Irish government about that?)
The best possible scenario for Macron is that turnout is simply those people who voted Macron in round one, and those who voted Le Pen in round two.
Of course he would not be as blatant as that; but pro-Russian candidates and parties might well find such fear a useful recruiting ground. "We can save you from war! Look at how the west let Ukraine down; our future lies with the east!"
A win yes but hardly a resounding endorsement for his second term
According to four opinion polls carried out this Sunday by four renowned polling institutes in France, Emmanuel Macron is credited with 55% to 58 of the votes, while Marine Le Pen would collect between 42 and 45% of the votes, learned La Libre and LN24 . These results come from surveys carried out on the Internet with citizens who voted before 5 p.m.
Here are the results according to each polling institute
Harris Interactive: 55% for Emmanuel Macron - 45% for Marine Le Pen
Ifop: 56% for Emmanuel Macron - 44% for Marine Le Pen
OpinionWay: 58% for Emmanuel Macron - 42% for Marine Le Pen
BVA: 57% for Emmanuel Macron - 43% for Marine Le Pen
In any event, Macron needed to win over the other parties voters because he's actually at a disadvantage when it comes to voters who would be said to naturally share his views. Le Pen's "natural" (i.e. voters who share her views) vote share going into Round 2 was 32.4% (MLP + Zemmour + DuPont-Aignan) vs Macron's c. 25% share.
The best result for Macron would be a high turnout because it would suggest that the eliminated candidates' voters were coming out to stop Le Pen. That doesn't look to be happening.
A clear Macron win but Le Pen much closer to him than in 2017 too
My forecast is NOT to be relied on for betting or any other purposes, DYOR
EDIT: Here it is - on the pitch Barnsley had the claim: https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11564691/how-arsenal-were-voted-into-the-top-flight-over-tottenham-in-1919
A clear mandate for your second term eg for Thatcher in 1983, Blair in 2001 or Reagan in 1984 is generally much better
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
"In 1919, The Football League controversially voted to promote The Arsenal, instead of relegated local rivals Tottenham Hotspur, into the newly enlarged First Division, despite only finishing fifth in the Second Division's last pre-war season of 1914–15. Later that year, The Arsenal started dropping "The" in official documents, gradually shifting its name for the final time towards Arsenal, as it is generally known today."
#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C.
Worse, as I believe RCS has pointed out, Russia relies on western providers for much of its oil and gas extraction kit. Without access to that kit, it will get increasingly expensive to extract those resources.
Russia does appear to be screwed in the medium term, even if they were to 'win' in Ukraine.
Rather like the now unsupported Western aeroplanes, they’ll gradually deteriorate, and end up being cannibalised to keep the remaining fleet operational.
Are the Russians still able to send oil and gas through their pipelines to Europe? Because after all quite a lot of them cross Ukraine...
They should have looked at South Korea post-1953 and asked themselves how such a small country - with few of the advantages Russia has - turned itself from a ruined mess into an economic power. The answer is through difficult, hard work. Instead the Russian regime chose to just enrich themselves.
What should I say?
Since forever they've depended on foreign industrialists. Britain and the US in 19th C Russia; the US under Lenin and Stalin; Germany more recently.
It's not impossible, but it would take decades.
There’s good reason that Nord Stream 2 was described as “The F*** Ukraine Pipeline”, and Russia has worked hard to stop construction of pipelines and terminals across Europe that would allow increasing imports from the Middle East or the USA. Led of course, by European politicians such as Schroeder, who sold his soul and his country out for a few million rubles.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
Some economists doubt that a kleptocratic mafiosi can, because of their very nature, ever have the capability to build up and manage complex R&D and manufacturing processes
The Kremlin thinks that Russia now has self-reliance in tractor production (and many other products, including military assets), but the reality is that they have no capability at all under Western sanctions, because the whole damn thing was imported!
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1501369950463836164
Ultimately, if the makers of capital goods (i.e. the things that make things) are resolute in continuing sanctions, then the Russians will find import substitution very hard indeed.
I'm not arguing we march on Moscow. I'm simply arguing we enforce the international rules that Russia has signed up to. I think he's more likely to walk away without using nukes if he knows that Moscow and St Petersburg get nuked if he crosses that line.
Macron 56
Le Pen 44
If you want to look at the mess they've been in recently, look at the Angara rocket (four launches in eight years) or the fraudulent mess of the Vostochny Cosmodrome. This is in spaceflight, something they were leading the world in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket_family)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostochny_Cosmodrome
TF1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQujWxCs2-k
BFMTV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNtlU3qMYCs
France Info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Nwo-ypKtM
Results map: https://www.france24.com/en/live-2022-french-presidential-election-–-first-round-results
(it says 1st rd but map is for 2nd)
Now, I'm sure China will continue sanction busting. And I'm sure that they could get stuff sent via India at a pinch. But the idea that their equipment is not utterly dependent on developed world components is utterly for the bids.
https://reaction.life/wartime-putins-russia-has-become-a-madhouse-threatening-the-world
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1518279263597862913?t=xTUpYn7d9gAj_YMZnQaWNA&s=19
#Ukraine: As a few of the NLAW launchers delivered to Ukraine by the UK have ran into battery issues (Running out too fast, or not functioning well in the cold), well, as ever, local forces are coming up with solutions.
https://t.co/yrDrPEb2hJ
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-election-2022-live-blog/
And the winner is...