A P&O ferry, which operates between Larne and Cairnryan, is adrift off the coast of Larne. The European Causeway, which can carry up to 410 passengers, is about five miles off Larne Harbour. It left Cairnryan at about 12:00 BST and was due to arrive at Larne Harbour at 14:00. P&O said the incident occurred due to a mechanical issue in the Irish Sea and a full inspection will take place when the ship is back in port.
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
The fact that that role exists, presumably with a salary in the six figures, tells you everything you need to know about the UK in 2022, and its failure to deliver major infrastructure projects close to time and budget.
The French have a saying, apparently: "You don't consult the frogs when you're draining the swamp." And the Chinese have a saying: "You have thirty minutes to leave your apartment before it is bulldozed."
Honestly, on relfection, I prefer our system. We may be hopeless at building things but the chances of your home being arbitrarily taken or rendered worthless is pretty low.
I do worry though that Stewart Jackson will see his remit as preventing HS2 being built, rather than ensuring it is built in a way which minimises the negatives and maximises the positives for individuals along its route. Stewart, if you're reading, let us know!
The way I would do it, is pay people a 50% uplift on their property’s independently-assessed value, a one-time offer that decreases over time to 100%. They spend more money and opportunity cost, spending years talking rather than building.
I remember my old favourite statistic, that Dubai Airport’s Terminal 3, was built in less time than LHR Terminal 5’s planning enquiry. The scope of the projects was the same, new buildings on the existing site, plus access roads
Yes, that's a good idea. As a side effect, it would also leave the state in possession of a lot of previously developed land without major contamination issues.
There is a similar story that the entire budget for the Mottram-Hollingworth-Tintwistle bypass was spent on the enquiry. (I'm sure there was far more nuance to it than this - but the MHT bypass is still yet to be built...)
Corbyn stand up to Putin...i just spat out my coffee.
This is the man who said we needed to cooperate with Russia, send them the poison samples so they could find out what really happened in Salisbury.
The chances he would have sent 1000s of NLAWs and the SAS to Ukraine is laughable. Remember in his deluded world this is NATOs fault. Rather than destroying 100s of tanks the Ukrainian SoF would currently be absolutely f##ked under Comrade Corbyn.
The Ukrainians managed to repell Russia in the early weeks because the UK (and US) have been arming and training Ukrainians for years and particularly the months before the invasion.
It was apparently "funded by USAID" and "virtually under the patronage of the US President and Congress"
Wait. So the Russian army is getting whipped by a bunch of poofs???
A bunch of poofs can be quite handy in the war thing. This is an SAS territorial unit in training for possible deployment in Ukraine (Mark Francois just out of shot).
For those of you in senior management positions, please please please ensure your staff have decent laptops.
I've just moved role and this ancient elitebook can't run Teams if I have my camera on, can barely run anything in R, and can only keep about three edge tabs active.
"Months" is the response from the IT guys.
Are you yet to discover the cappuccino-keyboard technique? I hear it it's an extremely powerful tool in accelerating key IT upgrades in the workplace?
Nope. Speaking as the IT manager, we have the special 2010 relic laptop waiting for the next person who suffers from a cappuccino-keyboard interface problem.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Western arms shipments to Ukraine mean Nato is "in essence engaged in war with Russia" and there is "considerable" risk of the conflict going nuclear
This is now a settled theme from Russia,.
Tbh I'm amazed they haven't said this from the outset, and it's part of the reason why I think we've being really disingenuous about the No Fly Zone. We have drawn our own line by saying that it's fine to supply tons of military equipment, intelligence and, even, special 'advisors' (SAS) to Ukraine but it's not fine to install a NFZ. 95% of people on here have gone along with this, often vociferously. They've told themselves that the one will help Ukraine but won't escalate it but the other would lead to WWIII and Armageddon.
But it's cant and hypocrisy basically, isn't it? If we're going to support Ukraine, bloody well support Ukraine. We should have backed Zelensky's request and stood up to Putin.
Just my opinion. Don't flame me.
Not going to flame you, but consider this: all but the most psychopathic criminals retain a demented sense of justice, a point quite neatly illustrated by monty python's piranha brothers who nail someone's head to the floor "because he had transgressed the unwritten code." Putin's unwritten code includes no nfz.
Or of course, he is bluffing and we only think it does. But don't fall into the narrative of Stand up to the bully, give Ivan a bloody nose and he will always cave in to true British grit. That is a school story and there's no nukes in schools.
It's amazing how many people think this is fucking Michael Bay film and that Russia will back down if, in some as yet to be defined manner, Ukraine wins.
There is going to have to be a deal sooner or later and the pressure should be on Ukraine and Russia to make it sooner.
What 'pressure to do a deal' can we put on a Russia that is doing, and saying, what it is?
And what makes you think they'll stick with the deal for a microsecond longer than it takes to get what they want?
Again, even nutters have a sense of justice. You adhere to the unwritten code, you don't get your head nailed to the coffee table. Russia's sabre rattling is consistently if...then, else..., not, we are going to nuke you just for shits n giggles and because we can
But OK you think a deal can't be done, so whats your alternative? Give Ivan a dam' good thrashing because then he'll back down, like bullies always do?
The government and people of Russia believe, with 100% confidence, that they will come out of the other end of a nuclear exchange in far better shape than NATO. This is a recurrent theme on Russian TV.
It's a vast and sparsely populated country with shit infrastructure and people who are used to roughing it anyway.
Oh I'm sure that Putin, his cronies and oligarchs with their luxurious palaces and yachts are completely used to roughing it (!)
I don't think they want to spend the rest of their lives living underground.
Russia may be sparsely populated but much of the population is concentrated in a small number of areas. Nearly 10% of the population lives in Moscow, and another 14% lives in the next fourteen cities. It would not take many warheads to destroy those population centres.
I think this is a case where standing up to a bully is actually a lot safer than giving way to him.
If we would do it. Would we? Does Vlad think we would? Do his people?
Moscow was abandoned and burned to the ground in 1812, Leningrad had a 900 day siege, Stalingrad happened at Stalingrad. Having its cities pulverised to fuck and coming back from it, is just part of the myth.
Somehow, I don't think that either Russia's leaders or masses have a huge desire to commit national suicide.
Well, fuck it, look at the actual evidence, why not? You might as well say that nobody has ever gone to war because, yes, I know what it says in the history books, but would people really commit themselves to years of large scale slaughter and misery for no clear gain, time after time? There is a whole heap of commentators out there, and any number of clips of state TV on twitter, saying quite explicitly that Russia thinks it can win an all out nuclear war. Now if the Russians are saying that and the Western commentators are saying believe them, I don't see what weight is to be attached to your "somehow" gut feeling on the subject.
Russia had very little choice but to fight an enemy in 1941 that was bent on enslaving or exterminating the population. In such a situation, they had little choice but to endure hell.
Now, they do have a choice.
I see your problem: you have had enough of experts.
"Russia’s information infrastructure is hugely different from the West. The Russian masses, especially outside the cities, are not all on the internet; they rely on state-controlled television for news. That pre-existing monopoly has been massively reinforced since the invasion of Ukraine, with all alternative news sources blocked for the overwhelming majority of Russians. This has been compounded by many of the younger, social media-savvy generation leaving the country.
What is left is a population depressingly similar to its grandparents, who crowded Red Square to cheer the Leader of All Progressive Humanity whenever Stalin appeared atop Lenin’s tomb to receive the adulation of his helots. True, many applauded out of fear, but many also from conviction: even today, Stalin remains revered by millions of Russians. The mythology of the Great Patriotic War combines all the central elements of the Russian political identity: love of a strong leader, a near-masochist willingness to endure the unendurable for the sake of the motherland, and imperial greatness resulting in domination over other nations.
Since coming to power, Vladimir Putin has aspired to tick all those boxes. His propaganda machine, now unchallenged by any alternative voice, has reduced his compatriots to a state of moronic credulity. By carefully feeding the paranoia that is a principal component of the Russian character, Putin has secured his people’s support for an adventure that can only have catastrophic consequences for them."
I mean, LOL, Iain Martin, sure, but he *sounds* as if he knows what he is talking about, he is saying exactly what Russian TV and all the Western commentators on Russian TV are saying, and your intuition as to how you might feel if you were Russian is a bit off the point.
If Russians really do have such commitment to the cause that they'll choose national self-immolation in order to put Zelensky in his place, would we not be seeing some sign of it, by now? Where are the throngs of people of fighting age joining up, and the deeds of insane bravery on the battlefield? That was what we saw in 1941-45.
There's only one side in this war that's shown real fighting spirit, and it's not the Russian side.
The deeds of insane bravery were often inspired by the fact that you got shot if you retreated.
Yes, retreat would lead to certain death for you and probably also your family. Whereas advancing would lead only to probable death for you.
One of the reasons the Putinists keep suggesting that the "special operation" is a war by proxy with NATO is because they do not beleive that any one who resists them has an independent agency. It is also slightly less painful to pretend that they only reason that they are losing is "because NATO", rather than because of their own incompetence and the heroism of the Ukrainian armed forces defending their homeland against the rapist army.
In a tyranny it is very dangerous to speak up against the tyrant, but there is no doubt that plenty of people in Russia are appalled by the unfolding disaster and the complete collapse of Russia´s relationship with the rest of the world.
The war may continue for a while yet, and the worst days may still be ahead of us, but those who launched this unprovoked attack on a peaceful neighbour will not win, and the question is now how to ensure that the defeat is unanswerable. This may take some time, but the numbers do not lie. The Ukrainians are gaining materiel and soldiers, and Russia is losing both. Eventually the equation will be so strong that Russia will have to recognise the need to change course,
Tracy-Ann Oberman: EastEnders star pays damages in anti-Semitism libel case.
Hot on the heels of other recent legal results – such as the Telegraph’s and right-wing former Labour MP Ian Austin’s similar humiliation and apology to ex-Corbyn staffer Laura Murray
You could almost say AS was exaggerated for Political reasons by Labours opponents
Oh hang on
But it wasn't.
Corbyn cannot differentiate between Israeli Government over reaction to stone throwing Palestinian teenagers from Jewish Labour MPs and former MPs like Luciana Berger. To be that stupid made him unfit for high office.
Starmer may be as dull as ditchwater but as far as I understand he has not made the lives of certain Labour MPs intolerable simply because he foolishly conflated their faith with support for Benjamin Netanyahu.
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
Jeremy would probably have taken the reports of the Cuban vaccine at face value and tried to promote it globally against the evil capitalist alternatives.
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
We can measure Jezza by his own behaviour. He didn't take covid very seriously at all, ignored the rules on a number of occasions and didn't get vaccinated.
It was apparently "funded by USAID" and "virtually under the patronage of the US President and Congress"
Wait. So the Russian army is getting whipped by a bunch of poofs???
A bunch of poofs can be quite handy in the war thing. This is an SAS territorial unit in training for possible deployment in Ukraine (Mark Francois just out of shot).
I thought it was Mr Davis who was a Herefordshire territorial? Or professional?
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
We can measure Jezza by his own behaviour. He didn't take covid very seriously at all, ignored the rules on a number of occasions and didn't get vaccinated.
Not defending Corbyn, but do we know that he is unvaccinated? And as for your other point thank goodness we had a PM who didn't ignore the rules on a number of occasions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Western arms shipments to Ukraine mean Nato is "in essence engaged in war with Russia" and there is "considerable" risk of the conflict going nuclear
This is now a settled theme from Russia,.
Tbh I'm amazed they haven't said this from the outset, and it's part of the reason why I think we've being really disingenuous about the No Fly Zone. We have drawn our own line by saying that it's fine to supply tons of military equipment, intelligence and, even, special 'advisors' (SAS) to Ukraine but it's not fine to install a NFZ. 95% of people on here have gone along with this, often vociferously. They've told themselves that the one will help Ukraine but won't escalate it but the other would lead to WWIII and Armageddon.
But it's cant and hypocrisy basically, isn't it? If we're going to support Ukraine, bloody well support Ukraine. We should have backed Zelensky's request and stood up to Putin.
Just my opinion. Don't flame me.
Not going to flame you, but consider this: all but the most psychopathic criminals retain a demented sense of justice, a point quite neatly illustrated by monty python's piranha brothers who nail someone's head to the floor "because he had transgressed the unwritten code." Putin's unwritten code includes no nfz.
Or of course, he is bluffing and we only think it does. But don't fall into the narrative of Stand up to the bully, give Ivan a bloody nose and he will always cave in to true British grit. That is a school story and there's no nukes in schools.
It's amazing how many people think this is fucking Michael Bay film and that Russia will back down if, in some as yet to be defined manner, Ukraine wins.
There is going to have to be a deal sooner or later and the pressure should be on Ukraine and Russia to make it sooner.
What 'pressure to do a deal' can we put on a Russia that is doing, and saying, what it is?
And what makes you think they'll stick with the deal for a microsecond longer than it takes to get what they want?
Again, even nutters have a sense of justice. You adhere to the unwritten code, you don't get your head nailed to the coffee table. Russia's sabre rattling is consistently if...then, else..., not, we are going to nuke you just for shits n giggles and because we can
But OK you think a deal can't be done, so whats your alternative? Give Ivan a dam' good thrashing because then he'll back down, like bullies always do?
The government and people of Russia believe, with 100% confidence, that they will come out of the other end of a nuclear exchange in far better shape than NATO. This is a recurrent theme on Russian TV.
It's a vast and sparsely populated country with shit infrastructure and people who are used to roughing it anyway.
Oh I'm sure that Putin, his cronies and oligarchs with their luxurious palaces and yachts are completely used to roughing it (!)
I don't think they want to spend the rest of their lives living underground.
Russia may be sparsely populated but much of the population is concentrated in a small number of areas. Nearly 10% of the population lives in Moscow, and another 14% lives in the next fourteen cities. It would not take many warheads to destroy those population centres.
I think this is a case where standing up to a bully is actually a lot safer than giving way to him.
If we would do it. Would we? Does Vlad think we would? Do his people?
Moscow was abandoned and burned to the ground in 1812, Leningrad had a 900 day siege, Stalingrad happened at Stalingrad. Having its cities pulverised to fuck and coming back from it, is just part of the myth.
Somehow, I don't think that either Russia's leaders or masses have a huge desire to commit national suicide.
Well, fuck it, look at the actual evidence, why not? You might as well say that nobody has ever gone to war because, yes, I know what it says in the history books, but would people really commit themselves to years of large scale slaughter and misery for no clear gain, time after time? There is a whole heap of commentators out there, and any number of clips of state TV on twitter, saying quite explicitly that Russia thinks it can win an all out nuclear war. Now if the Russians are saying that and the Western commentators are saying believe them, I don't see what weight is to be attached to your "somehow" gut feeling on the subject.
Russia had very little choice but to fight an enemy in 1941 that was bent on enslaving or exterminating the population. In such a situation, they had little choice but to endure hell.
Now, they do have a choice.
I see your problem: you have had enough of experts.
"Russia’s information infrastructure is hugely different from the West. The Russian masses, especially outside the cities, are not all on the internet; they rely on state-controlled television for news. That pre-existing monopoly has been massively reinforced since the invasion of Ukraine, with all alternative news sources blocked for the overwhelming majority of Russians. This has been compounded by many of the younger, social media-savvy generation leaving the country.
What is left is a population depressingly similar to its grandparents, who crowded Red Square to cheer the Leader of All Progressive Humanity whenever Stalin appeared atop Lenin’s tomb to receive the adulation of his helots. True, many applauded out of fear, but many also from conviction: even today, Stalin remains revered by millions of Russians. The mythology of the Great Patriotic War combines all the central elements of the Russian political identity: love of a strong leader, a near-masochist willingness to endure the unendurable for the sake of the motherland, and imperial greatness resulting in domination over other nations.
Since coming to power, Vladimir Putin has aspired to tick all those boxes. His propaganda machine, now unchallenged by any alternative voice, has reduced his compatriots to a state of moronic credulity. By carefully feeding the paranoia that is a principal component of the Russian character, Putin has secured his people’s support for an adventure that can only have catastrophic consequences for them."
I mean, LOL, Iain Martin, sure, but he *sounds* as if he knows what he is talking about, he is saying exactly what Russian TV and all the Western commentators on Russian TV are saying, and your intuition as to how you might feel if you were Russian is a bit off the point.
If Russians really do have such commitment to the cause that they'll choose national self-immolation in order to put Zelensky in his place, would we not be seeing some sign of it, by now? Where are the throngs of people of fighting age joining up, and the deeds of insane bravery on the battlefield? That was what we saw in 1941-45.
There's only one side in this war that's shown real fighting spirit, and it's not the Russian side.
The deeds of insane bravery were often inspired by the fact that you got shot if you retreated.
Yes, retreat would lead to certain death for you and probably also your family. Whereas advancing would lead only to probable death for you.
One of the reasons the Putinists keep suggesting that the "special operation" is a war by proxy with NATO is because they do not beleive that any one who resists them has an independent agency. It is also slightly less painful to pretend that they only reason that they are losing is "because NATO", rather than because of their own incompetence and the heroism of the Ukrainian armed forces defending their homeland against the rapist army.
In a tyranny it is very dangerous to speak up against the tyrant, but there is no doubt that plenty of people in Russia are appalled by the unfolding disaster and the complete collapse of Russia´s relationship with the rest of the world.
The war may continue for a while yet, and the worst days may still be ahead of us, but those who launched this unprovoked attack on a peaceful neighbour will not win, and the question is now how to ensure that the defeat is unanswerable. This may take some time, but the numbers do not lie. The Ukrainians are gaining materiel and soldiers, and Russia is losing both. Eventually the equation will be so strong that Russia will have to recognise the need to change course,
Again, the thing I most fear is a sudden Russian collapse resulting in a panicked resort to tactical nukes. This is why, IMO, the Ukrainians are being so coy about taking credit for any sabotage or attacks on Russian territory and are keeping such actions to a bare minimum of extremely high value targets with minimal collateral damage.
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
Jeremy would probably have taken the reports of the Cuban vaccine at face value and tried to promote it globally against the evil capitalist alternatives.
There is no way he would have authorised buying billions of quid of big pharma vaccines from moderna and Pfizer, especially at a time when they weren't even out the lab....and even when they were, he didn't take it.
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
We can measure Jezza by his own behaviour. He didn't take covid very seriously at all, ignored the rules on a number of occasions and didn't get vaccinated.
Not defending Corbyn, but do we know that he is unvaccinated? And as for your other point thank goodness we had a PM who didn't ignore the rules on a number of occasions.
Because he has been asked on a numerous occasions and repeated said i won't say. Literally every other politician did their public service and said i got it, here i am having my jab, get yours too....he just pontificated about no no i won't comment, its private etc etc etc. There is only one conclusion to draw from that.
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
Jeremy would probably have taken the reports of the Cuban vaccine at face value and tried to promote it globally against the evil capitalist alternatives.
That may be correct, and we would probably have had lashings of the excellent Russian vaccine too.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
I believe Corbyn is fundamentally not very clever. He also formed his views on life in the 1970's and never bothered to update himself. His attitude around the Salisbury poisonings reveal him for what he is - a sympathizer for rogue states, and someone who despises the West. He would have tried for revolution if in power and the consequences would have been horrific.
It has been years since i read Antony Beevor's "Stalingrad", but I believe he estimated that 13,000 Soviet soldiers had been shot by their own government during the course of that one great battle.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Western arms shipments to Ukraine mean Nato is "in essence engaged in war with Russia" and there is "considerable" risk of the conflict going nuclear
This is now a settled theme from Russia,.
Tbh I'm amazed they haven't said this from the outset, and it's part of the reason why I think we've being really disingenuous about the No Fly Zone. We have drawn our own line by saying that it's fine to supply tons of military equipment, intelligence and, even, special 'advisors' (SAS) to Ukraine but it's not fine to install a NFZ. 95% of people on here have gone along with this, often vociferously. They've told themselves that the one will help Ukraine but won't escalate it but the other would lead to WWIII and Armageddon.
But it's cant and hypocrisy basically, isn't it? If we're going to support Ukraine, bloody well support Ukraine. We should have backed Zelensky's request and stood up to Putin.
Just my opinion. Don't flame me.
Not going to flame you, but consider this: all but the most psychopathic criminals retain a demented sense of justice, a point quite neatly illustrated by monty python's piranha brothers who nail someone's head to the floor "because he had transgressed the unwritten code." Putin's unwritten code includes no nfz.
Or of course, he is bluffing and we only think it does. But don't fall into the narrative of Stand up to the bully, give Ivan a bloody nose and he will always cave in to true British grit. That is a school story and there's no nukes in schools.
It's amazing how many people think this is fucking Michael Bay film and that Russia will back down if, in some as yet to be defined manner, Ukraine wins.
There is going to have to be a deal sooner or later and the pressure should be on Ukraine and Russia to make it sooner.
What 'pressure to do a deal' can we put on a Russia that is doing, and saying, what it is?
And what makes you think they'll stick with the deal for a microsecond longer than it takes to get what they want?
Again, even nutters have a sense of justice. You adhere to the unwritten code, you don't get your head nailed to the coffee table. Russia's sabre rattling is consistently if...then, else..., not, we are going to nuke you just for shits n giggles and because we can
But OK you think a deal can't be done, so whats your alternative? Give Ivan a dam' good thrashing because then he'll back down, like bullies always do?
The government and people of Russia believe, with 100% confidence, that they will come out of the other end of a nuclear exchange in far better shape than NATO. This is a recurrent theme on Russian TV.
It's a vast and sparsely populated country with shit infrastructure and people who are used to roughing it anyway.
Oh I'm sure that Putin, his cronies and oligarchs with their luxurious palaces and yachts are completely used to roughing it (!)
I don't think they want to spend the rest of their lives living underground.
Russia may be sparsely populated but much of the population is concentrated in a small number of areas. Nearly 10% of the population lives in Moscow, and another 14% lives in the next fourteen cities. It would not take many warheads to destroy those population centres.
I think this is a case where standing up to a bully is actually a lot safer than giving way to him.
If we would do it. Would we? Does Vlad think we would? Do his people?
Moscow was abandoned and burned to the ground in 1812, Leningrad had a 900 day siege, Stalingrad happened at Stalingrad. Having its cities pulverised to fuck and coming back from it, is just part of the myth.
Somehow, I don't think that either Russia's leaders or masses have a huge desire to commit national suicide.
Well, fuck it, look at the actual evidence, why not? You might as well say that nobody has ever gone to war because, yes, I know what it says in the history books, but would people really commit themselves to years of large scale slaughter and misery for no clear gain, time after time? There is a whole heap of commentators out there, and any number of clips of state TV on twitter, saying quite explicitly that Russia thinks it can win an all out nuclear war. Now if the Russians are saying that and the Western commentators are saying believe them, I don't see what weight is to be attached to your "somehow" gut feeling on the subject.
Russia had very little choice but to fight an enemy in 1941 that was bent on enslaving or exterminating the population. In such a situation, they had little choice but to endure hell.
Now, they do have a choice.
I see your problem: you have had enough of experts.
"Russia’s information infrastructure is hugely different from the West. The Russian masses, especially outside the cities, are not all on the internet; they rely on state-controlled television for news. That pre-existing monopoly has been massively reinforced since the invasion of Ukraine, with all alternative news sources blocked for the overwhelming majority of Russians. This has been compounded by many of the younger, social media-savvy generation leaving the country.
What is left is a population depressingly similar to its grandparents, who crowded Red Square to cheer the Leader of All Progressive Humanity whenever Stalin appeared atop Lenin’s tomb to receive the adulation of his helots. True, many applauded out of fear, but many also from conviction: even today, Stalin remains revered by millions of Russians. The mythology of the Great Patriotic War combines all the central elements of the Russian political identity: love of a strong leader, a near-masochist willingness to endure the unendurable for the sake of the motherland, and imperial greatness resulting in domination over other nations.
Since coming to power, Vladimir Putin has aspired to tick all those boxes. His propaganda machine, now unchallenged by any alternative voice, has reduced his compatriots to a state of moronic credulity. By carefully feeding the paranoia that is a principal component of the Russian character, Putin has secured his people’s support for an adventure that can only have catastrophic consequences for them."
I mean, LOL, Iain Martin, sure, but he *sounds* as if he knows what he is talking about, he is saying exactly what Russian TV and all the Western commentators on Russian TV are saying, and your intuition as to how you might feel if you were Russian is a bit off the point.
It does appear that the word is slowly getting back to those inside Russia, but it’s a slow process. Lots of younger people trying to educate their parents and grandparents that the TV is not telling the truth.
It won’t be long either, before the wives and mothers of 20,000 dead soldiers realise their husbands and sons are not coming home, as well as the tens of thousands more who will come home with injuries and stories.
Cognitive dissonance is incredibly hard to overcome. If something challenges deeply held beliefs (we're the good guys, Putin is a great leader, etc.), then we will perform the most extraordinary mental gymnastics to avoid having to reassess our views.
In the short- to medium-term this is true. Keep the external environment/message constant for long enough, and it is the self-image that collapses and now starts to conform to the external realities. This is how the Chinese succeeded in brainwashing US PoWs in the Korean War. Robert Cialdini's research into it is fascinating.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
At least he can apply that qualification to digging up what remains of his career as a (semi) serious tv presenter.
The fact that the article is behind a paywall in McPravda possibly means we don't need to take it too seriously. Whatever it says. Neil Oliver does seem to get up the noses of Nats though. It's quite a thing.
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
We can measure Jezza by his own behaviour. He didn't take covid very seriously at all, ignored the rules on a number of occasions and didn't get vaccinated.
Not defending Corbyn, but do we know that he is unvaccinated? And as for your other point thank goodness we had a PM who didn't ignore the rules on a number of occasions.
Should add Boris not following the rules. I said umpteen my opinion i.e. should be gone for fostering this culture. But i think one thing never mentioned in relation is one underlying reason is all of #10 had had covid and they were jammed in those offices morning, noon and night, so in terms of migiating covid spread, having drinks it is irrelevant to that. However morally you can't set the rules then ignore them.
It has been years since i read Antony Beevor's "Stalingrad", but I believe he estimated that 13,000 Soviet soldiers had been shot by their own government during the course of that one great battle.
The second line enforcers shooting those retreating from the front line?
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I'm not sure it is.
Fine, now lots of countries have joined in and our part in the response is probably no longer vital.
But to get to this point the Ukrainians had to survive the first week.
Without the training by UK forces (and others) and the weapons supplied just before the invasion, it might have looked a lot like 2014. Which is obviously what Vlad was expecting.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
I believe Corbyn is fundamentally not very clever. He also formed his views on life in the 1970's and never bothered to update himself. His attitude around the Salisbury poisonings reveal him for what he is - a sympathizer for rogue states, and someone who despises the West. He would have tried for revolution if in power and the consequences would have been horrific.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter because Corbyn never became PM. There is no doubt he would have been terribly incompetent and divisive
Terribly incompetent and divisive draws no parallels...or does it?
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
Disagree. An indifferent UK PM, alongside the indifferent French, German and US leaders, would have resulted in a very different conflict in Ukraine.
A prime does not have to be a substantial amount in comparison to the amount of fluid subsequently flowing through a pump. Its inconsequential volume does not subtract from its importance.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
Disagree. The PM has to authorise weapons being sent and SAS being deployed. Now Boris clearly couldn't organise a decent piss up in #10, so isn't organising the specifics, but he is the one that has to sign it off and those early discisive decisions in Jan / Feb (when nobody else was sending stuff) has saved Ukraine.
Apparently Trump has decreed that he will not come back to Twitter even if He is allowed by Musk, great news.
Does he mean it? don't know, he probably knows that if he does it would kill his own Triter alternative, 'Truth Social' he would also look silly if he did return and only got a fraction of his former followers back.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
I think that's broadly right, although I would also credit the Baltics and Poland too.
Edit to add: I think Italy, Japan and India also deserve far more opprobrium than they get. The last of them basically supports Russian actions, while Japan has upped purchases of Russian gas and Italy (along with Hungary) has been the most opposed to EU sanctions.
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
We can measure Jezza by his own behaviour. He didn't take covid very seriously at all, ignored the rules on a number of occasions and didn't get vaccinated.
Not defending Corbyn, but do we know that he is unvaccinated? And as for your other point thank goodness we had a PM who didn't ignore the rules on a number of occasions.
Should add Boris not following the rules. I said umpteen my opinion i.e. should be gone for fostering this culture. But i think one thing never mentioned in relation is one underlying reason is all of #10 had had covid and they were jammed in those offices morning, noon and night, so in terms of migiating covid spread, having drinks it is irrelevant to that. However morally you can't set the rules then ignore them.
Over the next few weeks your final statement will be tested. I am not convinced yet that you are correct.
At least he can apply that qualification to digging up what remains of his career as a (semi) serious tv presenter.
The fact that the article is behind a paywall in McPravda possibly means we don't need to take it too seriously. Whatever it says. Neil Oliver does seem to get up the noses of Nats though. It's quite a thing.
You don't know what it is about so you are just assuming from your prejudices?
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
We can measure Jezza by his own behaviour. He didn't take covid very seriously at all, ignored the rules on a number of occasions and didn't get vaccinated.
Not defending Corbyn, but do we know that he is unvaccinated? And as for your other point thank goodness we had a PM who didn't ignore the rules on a number of occasions.
Should add Boris not following the rules. I said umpteen my opinion i.e. should be gone for fostering this culture. But i think one thing never mentioned in relation is one underlying reason is all of #10 had had covid and they were jammed in those offices morning, noon and night, so in terms of migiating covid spread, having drinks it is irrelevant to that. However morally you can't set the rules then ignore them.
Over the next few weeks your final statement will be tested. I am not convinced yet that you are correct.
He might hang on, but i am talking about morals. Which we know for Boris, are very flexible.
At least he can apply that qualification to digging up what remains of his career as a (semi) serious tv presenter.
The fact that the article is behind a paywall in McPravda possibly means we don't need to take it too seriously. Whatever it says. Neil Oliver does seem to get up the noses of Nats though. It's quite a thing.
I thought from previous 'reactions' to National articles that you had a subscription?
If Unionists wish to hold Oliver up as a paladin for the cause, I'm all for him taking residence in as many hooters as possible. The Yoons' transition from happily parading the tv historian and president of NTS as a respectable supporter of the Union to pretending the antivax ranter on GBNews is nothing to do with them but that it's great that he gets up Nat noses is quite a thing.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
I think that's broadly right, although I would also credit the Baltics and Poland too.
Interesting points. I had it in mind that of the major powers UK had reacted swiftly and positively but if you are correct about US hesitancy then, like it or not, that is a big plus for the current government and (through gritted teeth) Boris.
At least he can apply that qualification to digging up what remains of his career as a (semi) serious tv presenter.
The fact that the article is behind a paywall in McPravda possibly means we don't need to take it too seriously. Whatever it says. Neil Oliver does seem to get up the noses of Nats though. It's quite a thing.
I thought from previous 'reactions' to National articles that you had a subscription?
If Unionists wish to hold Oliver up as a paladin for the cause, I'm all for him taking residence in as many hooters as possible. The Yoons' transition from happily parading the tv historian and president of NTS as a respectable supporter of the Union to pretending the antivax ranter on GBNews is nothing to do with them but that it's great that he gets up Nat noses is quite a thing.
Quite. Also the fact is that Prof Devine is a fairly neutral, somewhat pro-indy but fairly nuanced figure. Particularly interesting stuff on the Clearances (Lowland as well as Highland) for instance. I was quite taken aback with the strength of his comments.
It was apparently "funded by USAID" and "virtually under the patronage of the US President and Congress"
Wait. So the Russian army is getting whipped by a bunch of poofs???
A bunch of poofs can be quite handy in the war thing. This is an SAS territorial unit in training for possible deployment in Ukraine (Mark Francois just out of shot).
I thought it was Mr Davis who was a Herefordshire territorial? Or professional?
Mr Davis, what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?
It was apparently "funded by USAID" and "virtually under the patronage of the US President and Congress"
Wait. So the Russian army is getting whipped by a bunch of poofs???
A bunch of poofs can be quite handy in the war thing. This is an SAS territorial unit in training for possible deployment in Ukraine (Mark Francois just out of shot).
I thought it was Mr Davis who was a Herefordshire territorial? Or professional?
I was more thinking of Francois' self description as a Spartan, but you're likely right that whatever TA unit he belongs to, it ain't the SAS.
There's even a book what he wrote:
'Spartan Victory: The inside story of the Battle for Brexit'
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
I think that's broadly right, although I would also credit the Baltics and Poland too.
Interesting points. I had it in mind that of the major powers UK had reacted swiftly and positively but if you are correct about US hesitancy then, like it or not, that is a big plus for the current government and (through gritted teeth) Boris.
The British government - going all the way back to Cameron - deserves enormous credit for both (a) being there for Ukraine from the 2014 invasion of Crimea onwards, and (b) stepping up to the plate decisively as Russia invaded.
Most countries assumed that Russia would win easily, and therefore the path of least resistance was simply to wring hands in public. We - along with many countries in Eastern Europe (not Hungary) - stood up from the start and that made it a hell of a lot easier for others to join us.
I am no Johnson fan, but his support for Ukraine was decisive and highly creditable.
It was apparently "funded by USAID" and "virtually under the patronage of the US President and Congress"
Wait. So the Russian army is getting whipped by a bunch of poofs???
A bunch of poofs can be quite handy in the war thing. This is an SAS territorial unit in training for possible deployment in Ukraine (Mark Francois just out of shot).
The Sacred Band of Thebes were considered pretty effective.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
Disagree. An indifferent UK PM, alongside the indifferent French, German and US leaders, would have resulted in a very different conflict in Ukraine.
The counterfactual is an indifferent UK PM alongside the same US President. This one. Who is not indifferent at all. Biden and America are being pretty strong on Ukraine. Are they being strong purely because their resolve has been stiffened by Boris Johnson? No. That's extreme Johnsonian spin.
I'm not saying the UK PM is unimportant, or that if it were JC we probably wouldn't be quite such a firm ally to Ukraine. I merely dispute the exaggeration of if JC were PM "Ukraine would be screwed". It's a stretch. A bridge too far.
Although of course Ukraine are screwed now - since a reasonable meaning of 'screwed' is having your country ravaged and your people mass murdered.
Tracy-Ann Oberman: EastEnders star pays damages in anti-Semitism libel case.
Hot on the heels of other recent legal results – such as the Telegraph’s and right-wing former Labour MP Ian Austin’s similar humiliation and apology to ex-Corbyn staffer Laura Murray
You could almost say AS was exaggerated for Political reasons by Labours opponents
It has been years since i read Antony Beevor's "Stalingrad", but I believe he estimated that 13,000 Soviet soldiers had been shot by their own government during the course of that one great battle.
The second line enforcers shooting those retreating from the front line?
Deserters were shot or put into punishment battalions.
But, it's something of a canard that the Politruks just hung back in the rear and shot soldiers who retreated. Most of them fought alongside their men and did all they could to inspire them to stand firm.
It was apparently "funded by USAID" and "virtually under the patronage of the US President and Congress"
Wait. So the Russian army is getting whipped by a bunch of poofs???
A bunch of poofs can be quite handy in the war thing. This is an SAS territorial unit in training for possible deployment in Ukraine (Mark Francois just out of shot).
I thought it was Mr Davis who was a Herefordshire territorial? Or professional?
I was more thinking of Francois' self description as a Spartan, but you're likely right that whatever TA unit he belongs to, it ain't the SAS.
There's even a book what he wrote:
'Spartan Victory: The inside story of the Battle for Brexit'
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I'm not sure it is.
Fine, now lots of countries have joined in and our part in the response is probably no longer vital.
But to get to this point the Ukrainians had to survive the first week.
Without the training by UK forces (and others) and the weapons supplied just before the invasion, it might have looked a lot like 2014. Which is obviously what Vlad was expecting.
I don't seek to minimize or denigrate what the UK has done. But imo the most important thing (by far) for Ukraine was - is - the strong support of the US.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
Disagree. An indifferent UK PM, alongside the indifferent French, German and US leaders, would have resulted in a very different conflict in Ukraine.
The counterfactual is an indifferent UK PM alongside the same US President. This one. Who is not indifferent at all. Biden and America are being pretty strong on Ukraine. Are they being strong purely because their resolve has been stiffened by Boris Johnson? No. That's extreme Johnsonian spin.
I'm not saying the UK PM is unimportant, or that if it were JC we probably wouldn't be quite such a firm ally to Ukraine. I merely dispute the exaggeration of if JC were PM "Ukraine would be screwed". It's a stretch. A bridge too far.
Although of course Ukraine are screwed now - since a reasonable meaning of 'screwed' is having your country ravaged and your people mass murdered.
It's reasonable to assume that the weapons airlift from the UK in the weeks before the invasion had a material influence on Ukraine's ability to repel the initial onslaught. Remember that the US administration's assessment was that they would only last a few days and they only subsequently swung into a more proactive position.
It was apparently "funded by USAID" and "virtually under the patronage of the US President and Congress"
Wait. So the Russian army is getting whipped by a bunch of poofs???
A bunch of poofs can be quite handy in the war thing. This is an SAS territorial unit in training for possible deployment in Ukraine (Mark Francois just out of shot).
The Sacred Band of Thebes were considered pretty effective.
Indeed. Röhm was a lot of things, most of them unpleasant, but no one ever called him a coward. And then there's Friedrich der Große..
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
Disagree. An indifferent UK PM, alongside the indifferent French, German and US leaders, would have resulted in a very different conflict in Ukraine.
The counterfactual is an indifferent UK PM alongside the same US President. This one. Who is not indifferent at all. Biden and America are being pretty strong on Ukraine. Are they being strong purely because their resolve has been stiffened by Boris Johnson? No. That's extreme Johnsonian spin.
I'm not saying the UK PM is unimportant, or that if it were JC we probably wouldn't be quite such a firm ally to Ukraine. I merely dispute the exaggeration of if JC were PM "Ukraine would be screwed". It's a stretch. A bridge too far.
Although of course Ukraine are screwed now - since a reasonable meaning of 'screwed' is having your country ravaged and your people mass murdered.
Agreed - though I would not seek to minimise the credit due to our government over Ukraine.
Corbyn stand up to Putin...i just spat out my coffee.
This is the man who said we needed to cooperate with Russia, send them the poison samples so they could find out what really happened in Salisbury.
The chances he would have sent 1000s of NLAWs and the SAS to Ukraine is laughable. Remember in his deluded world this is NATOs fault. Rather than destroying 100s of tanks the Ukrainian SoF would currently be absolutely f##ked under Comrade Corbyn.
The Ukrainians managed to repell Russia in the early weeks because the UK (and US) have been arming and training Ukrainians for years and particularly the months before the invasion.
Perlease get the No 10 narrative right:
Boris Johnson managed to repell Russia in the early weeks because Boris Johnson has been arming and training Ukrainians for years and particularly the months before the invasion.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
I think that's broadly right, although I would also credit the Baltics and Poland too.
Interesting points. I had it in mind that of the major powers UK had reacted swiftly and positively but if you are correct about US hesitancy then, like it or not, that is a big plus for the current government and (through gritted teeth) Boris.
The British government - going all the way back to Cameron - deserves enormous credit for both (a) being there for Ukraine from the 2014 invasion of Crimea onwards, and (b) stepping up to the plate decisively as Russia invaded.
Most countries assumed that Russia would win easily, and therefore the path of least resistance was simply to wring hands in public. We - along with many countries in Eastern Europe (not Hungary) - stood up from the start and that made it a hell of a lot easier for others to join us.
I am no Johnson fan, but his support for Ukraine was decisive and highly creditable.
I don't know about decisive, but it was and is certainly highly creditable.
I see Germany have finally agreed to send the kit the Ukrainians want.
Good, All of it? including the heavy stuff? and what's the time line, at one point the Germans were saying 6-18 months for the Armed Personal Crease, become they needed to do work on them first.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
I think that's broadly right, although I would also credit the Baltics and Poland too.
Edit to add: I think Italy, Japan and India also deserve far more opprobrium than they get. The last of them basically supports Russian actions, while Japan has upped purchases of Russian gas and Italy (along with Hungary) has been the most opposed to EU sanctions.
I think that's slightly unfair to India, who now find themselves in a uniquely difficult geopolitical situation. India had a strong relationship with Ukraine before the war and so really does not support the war, but they are so desperate to have Russian support in any future conflict with China that they can't say so.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I'm not sure it is.
Fine, now lots of countries have joined in and our part in the response is probably no longer vital.
But to get to this point the Ukrainians had to survive the first week.
Without the training by UK forces (and others) and the weapons supplied just before the invasion, it might have looked a lot like 2014. Which is obviously what Vlad was expecting.
I don't seek to minimize or denigrate what the UK has done. But imo the most important thing (by far) for Ukraine was - is - the strong support of the US.
Which did not come for a significant period after the invasion AFAICR - Biden dithered a little (he has done very well since).
One thing that has not been mentioned is the alleged US and UK intelligence support the Ukrainians got before and after the invasion, which I think was probably more important than the initial weapons shipments. It seems they knew the Russian plans very well...
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
How can it be unfair not to overestimate the role of the British PM? In demurring from the exaggeration "Ukraine would be screwed if Jeremy Corbyn was PM", that's all I'm doing. Not overestimating the role of the British PM.
Hey, I'll tell you what IS absolutely crucial though - who the American president is. Imagine if it'd been 'friend of Putin and blackmailer of Ukraine' Donald Trump! I can think of a 7 letter word starting with 'S' that Ukraine would've been then. Jeez let's not even go there.
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
Thanks for outing yourself as preferring Boris over Corbyn.
See we are not all that different I prefer Boris over SKS
Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
You've never actually explained why you don't think Keir Starmer would be a good PM. A man who has ran a large organisation and overturned a 26 point deficit to be 8 points ahead.
Don't be ridiculous. Boris is a fool but given everything that's happened in Ukraine he's not a security risk like Corbyn.
Ukraine changed the game in Johnson's favour.
Prior to that they were both equally unsuited to being UK PM. Putin's invasion of Ukraine just ratcheted Corbyn's credibility down a notch, or ten.
I think vaccinations would have also proved a little stumbly for Corbyn, what with his brother being the main voice of the anti-vax movement.
I don't think Jeremy can be measured by Piers' behaviour. His own standards in certain departments are nonetheless low enough.
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
We can measure Jezza by his own behaviour. He didn't take covid very seriously at all, ignored the rules on a number of occasions and didn't get vaccinated.
Not defending Corbyn, but do we know that he is unvaccinated? And as for your other point thank goodness we had a PM who didn't ignore the rules on a number of occasions.
Because he has been asked on a numerous occasions and repeated said i won't say. Literally every other politician did their public service and said i got it, here i am having my jab, get yours too....he just pontificated about no no i won't comment, its private etc etc etc. There is only one conclusion to draw from that.
So there's one Blairite tradition he followed; Tone did the exact same thing over his childrens' MMR
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
Disagree. An indifferent UK PM, alongside the indifferent French, German and US leaders, would have resulted in a very different conflict in Ukraine.
The counterfactual is an indifferent UK PM alongside the same US President. This one. Who is not indifferent at all. Biden and America are being pretty strong on Ukraine. Are they being strong purely because their resolve has been stiffened by Boris Johnson? No. That's extreme Johnsonian spin.
I'm not saying the UK PM is unimportant, or that if it were JC we probably wouldn't be quite such a firm ally to Ukraine. I merely dispute the exaggeration of if JC were PM "Ukraine would be screwed". It's a stretch. A bridge too far.
Although of course Ukraine are screwed now - since a reasonable meaning of 'screwed' is having your country ravaged and your people mass murdered.
It's reasonable to assume that the weapons airlift from the UK in the weeks before the invasion had a material influence on Ukraine's ability to repel the initial onslaught. Remember that the US administration's assessment was that they would only last a few days and they only subsequently swung into a more proactive position.
Did they ?
There were also US airlifts. Perhaps more significantly, US reconnaissance assets were all around Ukraine well before the whole thing kicked off, and they were providing intelligence to the Ukraine government. Access to real time battlefield information has arguably been the decisive factor in countering the Russian assault - but who really knows ?
Until well after this is over and official histories are written, counterfactuals are even more guesswork than they will then be with full knowledge.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
How can it be unfair not to overestimate the role of the British PM? In demurring from the exaggeration "Ukraine would be screwed if Jeremy Corbyn was PM", that's all I'm doing. Not overestimating the role of the British PM.
Hey, I'll tell you what IS absolutely crucial though - who the American president is. Imagine if it'd been 'friend of Putin and blackmailer of Ukraine' Donald Trump! I can think of a 7 letter word starting with 'S' that Ukraine would've been then. Jeez let's not even go there.
Working out in that scenario which Trumpers would have been praising DT's wise instincts in keeping the USA out of foreign conflicts is an entertaining exercise.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
Disagree. An indifferent UK PM, alongside the indifferent French, German and US leaders, would have resulted in a very different conflict in Ukraine.
A prime does not have to be a substantial amount in comparison to the amount of fluid subsequently flowing through a pump. Its inconsequential volume does not subtract from its importance.
A nice analogy but I'm not sure it quite works for this situation.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
How can it be unfair not to overestimate the role of the British PM? In demurring from the exaggeration "Ukraine would be screwed if Jeremy Corbyn was PM", that's all I'm doing. Not overestimating the role of the British PM.
Hey, I'll tell you what IS absolutely crucial though - who the American president is. Imagine if it'd been 'friend of Putin and blackmailer of Ukraine' Donald Trump! I can think of a 7 letter word starting with 'S' that Ukraine would've been then. Jeez let's not even go there.
Working out in that scenario which Trumpers would have been praising DT's wise instincts in keeping the USA out of foreign conflicts is an entertaining exercise.
That is, of course, an even scarier counterfactual than Corbyn.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
Disagree. The PM has to authorise weapons being sent and SAS being deployed. Now Boris clearly couldn't organise a decent piss up in #10, so isn't organising the specifics, but he is the one that has to sign it off and those early discisive decisions in Jan / Feb (when nobody else was sending stuff) has saved Ukraine.
So what you're saying is the actions of the UK under PM Boris Johnson have saved Ukraine - ie without them Russia would have won or be winning this war.
I find this fanciful. Bet Ben Wallace doesn't claim that when he's in serious mode with his people.
As I understand it (and I'm no expert on this any more), the Russians are still supplying gas to the Italians and the Hungarians via the Ukrainian pipeline (which is somehow still functioning despite the war), while they have now turned off the pipeline to Poland (which is the Yamal/Jamal pipeline).
This not costless for the Russians. They will have only limited gas storage themselves, and if they start to "shut in" production, they can damage existing fields. The alternative of flaring the gas is equally problematic.
Boris Johnson to privatise the Passport Office for incompetence.
Is that because they made the blue passports black?
They didn't. They're definitely blue.
That's a much nicer shade of blue than the mockups that were in the press when the contract for printing them was agreed.
I agree.
I can see why people think they're black - they are a dark navy blue and on a light background they look black - but on a black background it's easy to see they aren't.
It's so weird that a leftie like BJO genuinely wants a Tory Government over Labour
Rachel Reeves said she was "pleased" Labour lost in 2019
I will be equally pleased with that result in 2024
No she didn’t say that. Don’t lie.
She said she was glad Corbyn wasn’t PM right now. I agree with her.
If Labour has won the election, who would have been PM? Strains credulity that a Labour Parliamentary party that no confidence voted Corbyn but then did nothing would have booted him out if he had won them the keys to Downing Street.
It is a distinction without difference.
PM Corbyn would really be conflicted now. Who to support over Ukraine? NATO or a former Soviet comrade.
Even Johnson for all his utter uselessness worked that one out.
Corbyn would be Anti War and has condemned Putins invasion
The truth is that no modern politician has been more consistent or more prescient when it comes to Putin than Corbyn. Far from being pro-Putin, Corbyn warned against him when others didn’t.
Do you really believe that crap or are you just having us on?
I don't care what Corbyn might have said about Putin more than two decades back in a period when his Marxist views were no doubt fully in line with those of the residual communist opposition to Putin in Russia.
What matters is the present. Corbyn is the unapologetic figurehead of the utterly discredited so called "Stop The War Coalition". A group with its roots in the revolutionary far left whose line on Ukraine has essentially been that there should be neither Western military assistance to Ukraine nor sanctions against Russia. Nowadays he's become no more than Putin's useful (or more accurately useless) idiot.
'Strategic autonomy' would require (for example) a serious European chip industry independent of the US. That's not entirely impossible, but it is implausible. That's true of other technologies, too.
Strategic resilience would be a more rational aim - as it would for the UK.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
How can it be unfair not to overestimate the role of the British PM? In demurring from the exaggeration "Ukraine would be screwed if Jeremy Corbyn was PM", that's all I'm doing. Not overestimating the role of the British PM.
Hey, I'll tell you what IS absolutely crucial though - who the American president is. Imagine if it'd been 'friend of Putin and blackmailer of Ukraine' Donald Trump! I can think of a 7 letter word starting with 'S' that Ukraine would've been then. Jeez let's not even go there.
Working out in that scenario which Trumpers would have been praising DT's wise instincts in keeping the USA out of foreign conflicts is an entertaining exercise.
That is, of course, an even scarier counterfactual than Corbyn.
3 potential outcomes if Trump had been in the Whitehouse:
1. Very similar to now, because the US diplomatic and military establishment would have just got on with doing what they do on sanctions and weapons while ignoring Trump and letting him blather on meaninglessly. 2. Feeble response because of Trump's admiration for strongman Putin and general aversion to engaging the US in warfare (remember when he overruled a strike on Iran?) 3. Global thermonuclear war
I see Germany have finally agreed to send the kit the Ukrainians want.
Good, All of it? including the heavy stuff? and what's the time line, at one point the Germans were saying 6-18 months for the Armed Personal Crease, become they needed to do work on them first.
Well, a lot of the German kit simply doesn't work, so it's more incompetence than conspiracy.
I see Germany have finally agreed to send the kit the Ukrainians want.
Good, All of it? including the heavy stuff? and what's the time line, at one point the Germans were saying 6-18 months for the Armed Personal Crease, become they needed to do work on them first.
Well, a lot of the German kit simply doesn't work, so it's more incompetence than conspiracy.
To be fair, it'll be going into a field against a lot of Russia kit that simply doesn't work.
"The second line enforcers shooting those retreating from the front line?"
Tim T - As I recall, yes, but it has been a while since I read Beevor's "Stalingrad". (I should have added that the Russians dispute the 13,000 killed by the enforcers estimate.)
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
Disagree. The PM has to authorise weapons being sent and SAS being deployed. Now Boris clearly couldn't organise a decent piss up in #10, so isn't organising the specifics, but he is the one that has to sign it off and those early discisive decisions in Jan / Feb (when nobody else was sending stuff) has saved Ukraine.
So what you're saying is the actions of the UK under PM Boris Johnson have saved Ukraine - ie without them Russia would have won or be winning this war.
I find this fanciful. Bet Ben Wallace doesn't claim that when he's in serious mode with his people.
Yes and Zelenskyy has pretty much said the same too. The UK have been a major ally for Ukraine.
Biden was initially hesitant to send much weaponry to Ukraine. Without the leadership of both Zelenskyy's Ukraine and the UKG, Russia would likely have won the war early on.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
I think that's broadly right, although I would also credit the Baltics and Poland too.
Edit to add: I think Italy, Japan and India also deserve far more opprobrium than they get. The last of them basically supports Russian actions, while Japan has upped purchases of Russian gas and Italy (along with Hungary) has been the most opposed to EU sanctions.
I think that's slightly unfair to India, who now find themselves in a uniquely difficult geopolitical situation. India had a strong relationship with Ukraine before the war and so really does not support the war, but they are so desperate to have Russian support in any future conflict with China that they can't say so.
Yet Russia and China are as thick as thieves, and if they end up in a war with China, it will be the West that they rely on for support.
"Germany is 'days away' from becoming independent of Russian oil.
During a visit to Warsaw, German Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck said his country is “very, very” close to independence of Russian oil thanks to the efforts to diversify suppliers and the support from Poland."
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
How can it be unfair not to overestimate the role of the British PM? In demurring from the exaggeration "Ukraine would be screwed if Jeremy Corbyn was PM", that's all I'm doing. Not overestimating the role of the British PM.
Hey, I'll tell you what IS absolutely crucial though - who the American president is. Imagine if it'd been 'friend of Putin and blackmailer of Ukraine' Donald Trump! I can think of a 7 letter word starting with 'S' that Ukraine would've been then. Jeez let's not even go there.
Working out in that scenario which Trumpers would have been praising DT's wise instincts in keeping the USA out of foreign conflicts is an entertaining exercise.
That is, of course, an even scarier counterfactual than Corbyn.
3 potential outcomes if Trump had been in the Whitehouse:
1. Very similar to now, because the US diplomatic and military establishment would have just got on with doing what they do on sanctions and weapons while ignoring Trump and letting him blather on meaninglessly. 2. Feeble response because of Trump's admiration for strongman Putin and general aversion to engaging the US in warfare (remember when he overruled a strike on Iran?) 3. Global thermonuclear war
One interesting thing is the way the US is starting to take up at least a little of the slack of Russia supply via increased LNG shipments to Europe.
That's under Biden. Might Trump have contributed an even bigger slice, given his green agnostic stance to hydrocarbons in general?
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
How can it be unfair not to overestimate the role of the British PM? In demurring from the exaggeration "Ukraine would be screwed if Jeremy Corbyn was PM", that's all I'm doing. Not overestimating the role of the British PM.
Hey, I'll tell you what IS absolutely crucial though - who the American president is. Imagine if it'd been 'friend of Putin and blackmailer of Ukraine' Donald Trump! I can think of a 7 letter word starting with 'S' that Ukraine would've been then. Jeez let's not even go there.
Working out in that scenario which Trumpers would have been praising DT's wise instincts in keeping the USA out of foreign conflicts is an entertaining exercise.
That is, of course, an even scarier counterfactual than Corbyn.
3 potential outcomes if Trump had been in the Whitehouse:
1. Very similar to now, because the US diplomatic and military establishment would have just got on with doing what they do on sanctions and weapons while ignoring Trump and letting him blather on meaninglessly. 2. Feeble response because of Trump's admiration for strongman Putin and general aversion to engaging the US in warfare (remember when he overruled a strike on Iran?) 3. Global thermonuclear war
On 1), would they really have been allowed ? It's a serious question, and I have serious doubts about the answer. Remember Trump actively held up aid to Ukraine when demanding cooperation in supplying political dirt on Biden.
I think it quite possible he'd have had the US military and intelligence assets sitting on their hands prior to the invasion, and the initial assault on the Kyiv airfield might have succeeded with the resulting element of surprise.
At least he can apply that qualification to digging up what remains of his career as a (semi) serious tv presenter.
The fact that the article is behind a paywall in McPravda possibly means we don't need to take it too seriously. Whatever it says. Neil Oliver does seem to get up the noses of Nats though. It's quite a thing.
I thought from previous 'reactions' to National articles that you had a subscription?
If Unionists wish to hold Oliver up as a paladin for the cause, I'm all for him taking residence in as many hooters as possible. The Yoons' transition from happily parading the tv historian and president of NTS as a respectable supporter of the Union to pretending the antivax ranter on GBNews is nothing to do with them but that it's great that he gets up Nat noses is quite a thing.
Lozza's manlove for him is quite something to see. "Happy Birthday you beautiful man" he tweeted to Neil on the big day recently. I just hope it's requited.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
How can it be unfair not to overestimate the role of the British PM? In demurring from the exaggeration "Ukraine would be screwed if Jeremy Corbyn was PM", that's all I'm doing. Not overestimating the role of the British PM.
Hey, I'll tell you what IS absolutely crucial though - who the American president is. Imagine if it'd been 'friend of Putin and blackmailer of Ukraine' Donald Trump! I can think of a 7 letter word starting with 'S' that Ukraine would've been then. Jeez let's not even go there.
Working out in that scenario which Trumpers would have been praising DT's wise instincts in keeping the USA out of foreign conflicts is an entertaining exercise.
That is, of course, an even scarier counterfactual than Corbyn.
3 potential outcomes if Trump had been in the Whitehouse:
1. Very similar to now, because the US diplomatic and military establishment would have just got on with doing what they do on sanctions and weapons while ignoring Trump and letting him blather on meaninglessly. 2. Feeble response because of Trump's admiration for strongman Putin and general aversion to engaging the US in warfare (remember when he overruled a strike on Iran?) 3. Global thermonuclear war
Its also possible, and yes this is controversial, that because Trump was seen as 'unpredictable' that Putin would not invade while Trump was in power.
I do believe Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson yes, that's a sincerely held view. Johnson is a 0, Corbyn a 0.1
Ukraine would have been screwed right now had Corbyn been in charge.
I get the sentiment but this is to overestimate the role of the British PM in the conflict.
I think that’s unfair on BJ (and the U.K.). It’s clear given the hesitancy of countries such as France and Germany - and indeed the US - that they would have been quietly satisfied for the Ukraine problem to go away with a swift Russian victory which would have led them to go “oh well”. Arguably, the U.K. was the one that stiffened the spines with its shipments, as well as giving the Eastern European / Baltic states one of the big NATO countries on their side.
How can it be unfair not to overestimate the role of the British PM? In demurring from the exaggeration "Ukraine would be screwed if Jeremy Corbyn was PM", that's all I'm doing. Not overestimating the role of the British PM.
Hey, I'll tell you what IS absolutely crucial though - who the American president is. Imagine if it'd been 'friend of Putin and blackmailer of Ukraine' Donald Trump! I can think of a 7 letter word starting with 'S' that Ukraine would've been then. Jeez let's not even go there.
Working out in that scenario which Trumpers would have been praising DT's wise instincts in keeping the USA out of foreign conflicts is an entertaining exercise.
That is, of course, an even scarier counterfactual than Corbyn.
3 potential outcomes if Trump had been in the Whitehouse:
1. Very similar to now, because the US diplomatic and military establishment would have just got on with doing what they do on sanctions and weapons while ignoring Trump and letting him blather on meaninglessly. 2. Feeble response because of Trump's admiration for strongman Putin and general aversion to engaging the US in warfare (remember when he overruled a strike on Iran?) 3. Global thermonuclear war
One interesting thing is the way the US is starting to take up at least a little of the slack of Russia supply via increased LNG shipments to Europe.
That's under Biden. Might Trump have contributed an even bigger slice, given his green agnostic stance to hydrocarbons in general?
The fundamental problem with the US supplying LNG to Europe is an absence of vessels. There are only a relatively small number of LNG carriers in the world (685 give or take), and more than 80% of them are on precontracted routes. (That is they are signed up to bring gas for a decade from PNG to S Korea, etc.)
This leaves a very small number of vessels that can step in and take US gas to Europe, and pretty much all of those are doing exactly that right now.
I don't believe a change in US administration could magic new vessels into existence.
Comments
A P&O ferry, which operates between Larne and Cairnryan, is adrift off the coast of Larne.
The European Causeway, which can carry up to 410 passengers, is about five miles off Larne Harbour.
It left Cairnryan at about 12:00 BST and was due to arrive at Larne Harbour at 14:00.
P&O said the incident occurred due to a mechanical issue in the Irish Sea and a full inspection will take place when the ship is back in port.
Honestly, who would go on a P&O Ferry?
He might have been excellent through the pandemic, we shall never know. We do however have a good idea based on his past rhetoric that he would have had a shocking Ukraine war.
As a side effect, it would also leave the state in possession of a lot of previously developed land without major contamination issues.
There is a similar story that the entire budget for the Mottram-Hollingworth-Tintwistle bypass was spent on the enquiry. (I'm sure there was far more nuance to it than this - but the MHT bypass is still yet to be built...)
This is the man who said we needed to cooperate with Russia, send them the poison samples so they could find out what really happened in Salisbury.
The chances he would have sent 1000s of NLAWs and the SAS to Ukraine is laughable. Remember in his deluded world this is NATOs fault. Rather than destroying 100s of tanks the Ukrainian SoF would currently be absolutely f##ked under Comrade Corbyn.
The Ukrainians managed to repell Russia in the early weeks because the UK (and US) have been arming and training Ukrainians for years and particularly the months before the invasion.
In a tyranny it is very dangerous to speak up against the tyrant, but there is no doubt that plenty of people in Russia are appalled by the unfolding disaster and the complete collapse of Russia´s relationship with the rest of the world.
The war may continue for a while yet, and the worst days may still be ahead of us, but those who launched this unprovoked attack on a peaceful neighbour will not win, and the question is now how to ensure that the defeat is unanswerable. This may take some time, but the numbers do not lie. The Ukrainians are gaining materiel and soldiers, and Russia is losing both. Eventually the equation will be so strong that Russia will have to recognise the need to change course,
Corbyn cannot differentiate between Israeli Government over reaction to stone throwing Palestinian teenagers from Jewish Labour MPs and former MPs like Luciana Berger. To be that stupid made him unfit for high office.
Starmer may be as dull as ditchwater but as far as I understand he has not made the lives of certain Labour MPs intolerable simply because he foolishly conflated their faith with support for Benjamin Netanyahu.
https://twitter.com/usuprun/status/1518512134623223808/photo/1
PS Adapted of course not to reference the RF bit but independence ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/26/angela-rayner-wears-trouser-suit-tv-appearance-condemns-classism/
Are we confident the DT has got the hang of this non-sexist thing?
Perhaps they have, the first draft may have read "fetching trouser suit".
Point taken!
Neil Oliver does seem to get up the noses of Nats though. It's quite a thing.
Fine, now lots of countries have joined in and our part in the response is probably no longer vital.
But to get to this point the Ukrainians had to survive the first week.
Without the training by UK forces (and others) and the weapons supplied just before the invasion, it might have looked a lot like 2014. Which is obviously what Vlad was expecting.
Terribly incompetent and divisive draws no parallels...or does it?
Edit to add: I think Italy, Japan and India also deserve far more opprobrium than they get. The last of them basically supports Russian actions, while Japan has upped purchases of Russian gas and Italy (along with Hungary) has been the most opposed to EU sanctions.
Should we privatise Boris?
Asking for a friend.
If Unionists wish to hold Oliver up as a paladin for the cause, I'm all for him taking residence in as many hooters as possible. The Yoons' transition from happily parading the tv historian and president of NTS as a respectable supporter of the Union to pretending the antivax ranter on GBNews is nothing to do with them but that it's great that he gets up Nat noses is quite a thing.
There's even a book what he wrote:
'Spartan Victory: The inside story of the Battle for Brexit'
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spartan-Victory-inside-Battle-Brexit/dp/B09MJDKDMG
Some excellent, bitter Remoaner reviews.
Most countries assumed that Russia would win easily, and therefore the path of least resistance was simply to wring hands in public. We - along with many countries in Eastern Europe (not Hungary) - stood up from the start and that made it a hell of a lot easier for others to join us.
I am no Johnson fan, but his support for Ukraine was decisive and highly creditable.
I'm not saying the UK PM is unimportant, or that if it were JC we probably wouldn't be quite such a firm ally to Ukraine. I merely dispute the exaggeration of if JC were PM "Ukraine would be screwed". It's a stretch. A bridge too far.
Although of course Ukraine are screwed now - since a reasonable meaning of 'screwed' is having your country ravaged and your people mass murdered.
But, it's something of a canard that the Politruks just hung back in the rear and shot soldiers who retreated. Most of them fought alongside their men and did all they could to inspire them to stand firm.
Röhm was a lot of things, most of them unpleasant, but no one ever called him a coward. And then there's Friedrich der Große..
Boris Johnson managed to repell Russia in the early weeks because Boris Johnson has been arming and training Ukrainians for years and particularly the months before the invasion.
One thing that has not been mentioned is the alleged US and UK intelligence support the Ukrainians got before and after the invasion, which I think was probably more important than the initial weapons shipments. It seems they knew the Russian plans very well...
Hey, I'll tell you what IS absolutely crucial though - who the American president is. Imagine if it'd been 'friend of Putin and blackmailer of Ukraine' Donald Trump! I can think of a 7 letter word starting with 'S' that Ukraine would've been then. Jeez let's not even go there.
There were also US airlifts.
Perhaps more significantly, US reconnaissance assets were all around Ukraine well before the whole thing kicked off, and they were providing intelligence to the Ukraine government. Access to real time battlefield information has arguably been the decisive factor in countering the Russian assault - but who really knows ?
Until well after this is over and official histories are written, counterfactuals are even more guesswork than they will then be with full knowledge.
https://www.cer.eu/insights/very-french-europe
https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kraj/onet-nieoficjalnie-rosja-wstrzymala-dostawy-gazu-do-polski-co-dalej/sf4jdzj
I find this fanciful. Bet Ben Wallace doesn't claim that when he's in serious mode with his people.
This not costless for the Russians. They will have only limited gas storage themselves, and if they start to "shut in" production, they can damage existing fields. The alternative of flaring the gas is equally problematic.
I can see why people think they're black - they are a dark navy blue and on a light background they look black - but on a black background it's easy to see they aren't.
I don't care what Corbyn might have said about Putin more than two decades back in a period when his Marxist views were no doubt fully in line with those of the residual communist opposition to Putin in Russia.
What matters is the present. Corbyn is the unapologetic figurehead of the utterly discredited so called "Stop The War Coalition". A group with its roots in the revolutionary far left whose line on Ukraine has essentially been that there should be neither Western military assistance to Ukraine nor sanctions against Russia. Nowadays he's become no more than Putin's useful (or more accurately useless) idiot.
@visegrad24
·
26m
BREAKING:
Russia has completely stopped delivering gas to Poland.
Poland’s largest news portal, Onet, reports that the Polish state-controlled oil and gas company PGNiG, is holding a crisis meeting.
Poland is one of the countries that has refused to pay for gas in rubles.
Strategic resilience would be a more rational aim - as it would for the UK.
1. Very similar to now, because the US diplomatic and military establishment would have just got on with doing what they do on sanctions and weapons while ignoring Trump and letting him blather on meaninglessly.
2. Feeble response because of Trump's admiration for strongman Putin and general aversion to engaging the US in warfare (remember when he overruled a strike on Iran?)
3. Global thermonuclear war
Hopefully other nations do the same soon and stop paying blood money for gas and oil from Russia.
Tim T - As I recall, yes, but it has been a while since I read Beevor's "Stalingrad". (I should have added that the Russians dispute the 13,000 killed by the enforcers estimate.)
Biden was initially hesitant to send much weaponry to Ukraine. Without the leadership of both Zelenskyy's Ukraine and the UKG, Russia would likely have won the war early on.
Germany should now share its gas with Poland, I don't think it will
"Germany is 'days away' from becoming independent of Russian oil.
During a visit to Warsaw, German Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck said his country is “very, very” close to independence of Russian oil thanks to the efforts to diversify suppliers and the support from Poland."
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1518977334950432769
That's under Biden. Might Trump have contributed an even bigger slice, given his green agnostic stance to hydrocarbons in general?
It's a serious question, and I have serious doubts about the answer. Remember Trump actively held up aid to Ukraine when demanding cooperation in supplying political dirt on Biden.
I think it quite possible he'd have had the US military and intelligence assets sitting on their hands prior to the invasion, and the initial assault on the Kyiv airfield might have succeeded with the resulting element of surprise.
Again, an unknowable counterfactual, though.
This leaves a very small number of vessels that can step in and take US gas to Europe, and pretty much all of those are doing exactly that right now.
I don't believe a change in US administration could magic new vessels into existence.