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.
Russia did invade while Trump was in power - those autonomous regions didn't spontaneously decide they wanted to be part of Russia.
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.
How rapidly could vessels be converted to by capable of being carriers?
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.
You know my view on that. As for the facts....
Obama Presidency - invasion of Ukraine Trump Presidency - nothing Biden Presidency - invasion of Ukraine
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.
Of course UK alone hasn't saved Ukraine. But the fact Ukrainian SoF where trained and armed by the British is a crucial factor in that North East corridor. The russians couldn't keep the supply lines going because the Ukrainian SoF were able to fight a guerrilla warfare crucially with weapons that the Russians had no match for. The UK ensuring they had lots of that kit early meant they could be highly effective.
That has given Ukraine breathing room in which now they are being armed by many countries with a whole arsenal of weaponary to fight more conventional battle. But the initial failure of the Blitzkrieg attack was crucial. While the Ukrainian SoF were NLAWing the shit out of Russian, Germany were still deciding if they should send party hats or not.
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.
How rapidly could vessels be converted to by capable of being carriers?
They can't - from memory you can't even use oil tankers.
'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.
Everywhere is dependent on other people and countries to a greater or lesser extent. Take UK farming: we could grow more food. But if we did that we'd need to import a lot more fertilizer. And if we didn't want to do that then we'd need to import more natural gas. Etc. etc.
And there are plenty of things where we don't have resources at all. So we're always going to be dependent on trade.
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.
Russia did invade while Trump was in power - those autonomous regions didn't spontaneously decide they wanted to be part of Russia.
Those 'Autonomies regions' stated in 2014 when Obama was president, and while there has been small movements on the boarder for all 8 years, there where no 'big' Russian advances in the Trump Years.
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.
How rapidly could vessels be converted to by capable of being carriers?
An LNG ship is a very special beast. Doubt you would get much saving in time out of converting. Building from scratch is a couple of years. Requires lots of specialist equipment, special steel etc etc.
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.
Intelligence or munitions? Clearly those Global Hawks haven't been doing nothing, although the US did seem a bit reluctant to send munitions initially.
Maybe their reluctance has been more about the risk of just handing stuff over to the Russians than not wanting to help Ukraine. Now there seems rather less risk of that, so everyone is going all in.
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.
How rapidly could vessels be converted to by capable of being carriers?
I'm not a ship builder, but my understanding is that LNG carease are fairly specialised ships, and while conversion is theoretically possible, you would have to start with a good quality ship, then do a lot of work on it. and as a result its not normally viable, and would not be a lot quicker than building a new ship.
"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."
Oil is easy, because it is (mostly) a tanker driven market. Germany (or wherever) can buy more from Saudi. And the Chinese buy more Russian oil. And a bunch of Norwegian VLCC owners (I'm looking at you John Fredriksen) end up making hundreds of millions of dollars because crude has to travel slightly longer routes and day rates increase.
Edit to add VLCC day rates have risen from $15,000 to $24,000 - which sounds like a lot, but when the pandemic first hit they got as high as $80,000/day.
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.
Well, no need to repeat my views re Trump being in power if this had happened - Big Rich just summed it up.
To go back to the point though and one that Zelensky has said - the UK played a crucial role when it came to the conflict. You only have to go back to Biden's statements pre-invasion how that would have been interpreted in Moscow as the West wouldn't do a huge amount.
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.
How has one of the most advanced high tech manufacturing countries in the world got kit that doesn't work?
"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."
Oil is easy, because it is (mostly) a tanker driven market. Germany (or wherever) can buy more from Saudi. And the Chinese buy more Russian oil. And a bunch of Norwegian VLCC owners (I'm looking at you John Fredriksen) end up making hundreds of millions of dollars because crude has to travel slightly longer routes and day rates increase.
And there are a large number of slightly shitty oil tankers laid up in various parts of the world.
An LNG tanker captain I worked with said that he liked the LNG trade, because it was one where there were no shitty tankers. Even the most ruthless cost cutter, when presented with the potential for fun, backed off.
That plus, the Captain said, he enjoyed radioing a warning to traffic ahead and watching them scramble out of his way on the radar. Even the sleepiest and most incompetent seaman would wake up when they heard an LNG tanker was heading their way.
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
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.
How rapidly could vessels be converted to by capable of being carriers?
They can't.
LNG carriers are incredibly specialised vessels, as they carry very large amounts of very cold gas (-165 degrees C). The insulation required to maintain those temperatures irrespective of what's going on outside the vessel is absolutely incredible. (There's some small French company - GTT? - which is the sole supplier of the membranes, which also adds complexity.)
Right now, there are a bunch of LNG ships under construction, and I'm sure more will come, but this is a multi-year issue.
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why can't people be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten?
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
Except in Jan / Feb, the UK was the only Western country transporting arms to Ukraine. And the US / UK intelligence services were the ones with the concrete Russian invasion plans.
Ukrainian incredible heart and bravery is foremost. But its fact the SoF have been trained by the SAS (and still sre being today), guided by UK / US intelligence services. Now the rest of the world has stepped up.
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.
How has one of the most advanced high tech manufacturing countries in the world got kit that doesn't work?
For a few related reasons,
principally the history since ww2 has left the Germans as a very non militaristic nation, this has let to constantly low budget for defence, which has meant money needed to be saved everywhere, keeping kit in working order has been the biggest shortfall.
Also the germane armed forces have struggled to attracted competent people, laving it less pro-active dynamic that other westered nations.
And, minister of defences has been seen as an unimportant post, so that its had people like EVDL as minister of defence.
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.
Russia did invade while Trump was in power - those autonomous regions didn't spontaneously decide they wanted to be part of Russia.
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.
Sub? Must be joking. Does anyone buy it, apart from cooncil PR departments?
Neil O is an old-fashioned contrarian. Bit like Christopher Hitchens. Not surprising if he's said something that offends Sir Tom's sensibilities. Certainly no paladin for anyone. I think he just has a regard for the sense of Britishness that he and many others feel, and isn't afraid to express 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.
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.
You know my view on that. As for the facts....
Obama Presidency - invasion of Ukraine Trump Presidency - nothing Biden Presidency - invasion of Ukraine
The "fact" I saw was Trump with his head so far up Putin's arse that Vlad could have been called the Four Legged President
I think South Korea dominates the LNG carrier making market, and so I guess the ships will come as fast as they can make them.
In the end, isn't Putin planting the seeds of Russia's own destruction by playing silly b8ggers with gas?
Yes & yes - the vast majority of LNG vessels are made in South Korean shipyards, and I think about fifty are currently under construction.
And yes - whatever happens now, Russia is an unreliable supplier, and big purchasers are going to enter into long contracts with alternatives, just to reduce risk. (Great news for various marginally economic LNG projects around the world.)
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.
How rapidly could vessels be converted to by capable of being carriers?
I'm not a ship builder, but my understanding is that LNG carease are fairly specialised ships, and while conversion is theoretically possible, you would have to start with a good quality ship, then do a lot of work on it. and as a result its not normally viable, and would not be a lot quicker than building a new ship.
I remember looking into floating LNG production in the Gulf of Guinea and even in one of the most benign sea states there is, you have issues around "sloshing" that impacts the compartmentalisation of the storage. I would say that LNG tankers are entirely specific builds and incapable of conversion.
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.
Russia did invade while Trump was in power - those autonomous regions didn't spontaneously decide they wanted to be part of Russia.
Those 'Autonomies regions' stated in 2014 when Obama was president, and while there has been small movements on the boarder for all 8 years, there where no 'big' Russian advances in the Trump Years.
Russia did put plenty of troops in the autonomous regions during Trump's time 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.
How rapidly could vessels be converted to by capable of being carriers?
They can't.
LNG carriers are incredibly specialised vessels, as they carry very large amounts of very cold gas (-165 degrees C). The insulation required to maintain those temperatures irrespective of what's going on outside the vessel is absolutely incredible. (There's some small French company - GTT? - which is the sole supplier of the membranes, which also adds complexity.)
Right now, there are a bunch of LNG ships under construction, and I'm sure more will come, but this is a multi-year issue.
Isn't the lesson that expensive energy begets cheap energy in the end, as man's ingenuity seeks out new sources?
I read some quite astonishing stats on the potential of Sahara Desert solar the other day.
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".
She was surprisingly good. Her reply that she was really upset people would think her a slapper raised her appeal several notches. Her image is so brash yet to show such vulnerability was very human. What's more she has single-handedly floored the Mail. It'll be a long time before any other trashy right wing rag tries to take her on again.
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.
How rapidly could vessels be converted to by capable of being carriers?
I'm not a ship builder, but my understanding is that LNG carease are fairly specialised ships, and while conversion is theoretically possible, you would have to start with a good quality ship, then do a lot of work on it. and as a result its not normally viable, and would not be a lot quicker than building a new ship.
I remember looking into floating LNG production in the Gulf of Guinea and even in one of the most benign sea states there is, you have issues around "sloshing" that impacts the compartmentalisation of the storage. I would say that LNG tankers are entirely specific builds and incapable of conversion.
That's why the world is moving from Moss tanks on ships (big spherical things) and towards some crazy membrane designs.
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
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.
You know my view on that. As for the facts....
Obama Presidency - invasion of Ukraine Trump Presidency - nothing Biden Presidency - invasion of Ukraine
The "fact" I saw was Trump with his head so far up Putin's arse that Vlad could have been called the Four Legged President
It's a kind of classic argument tactic of Trump fans to put one aspect of things in the most simplistic of descriptions, and ignore literally everything else that happened. Because the presidency was such a flaming train wreck it can't be defended any other way.
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.
How has one of the most advanced high tech manufacturing countries in the world got kit that doesn't work?
For a few related reasons,
principally the history since ww2 has left the Germans as a very non militaristic nation, this has let to constantly low budget for defence, which has meant money needed to be saved everywhere, keeping kit in working order has been the biggest shortfall.
Also the germane armed forces have struggled to attracted competent people, laving it less pro-active dynamic that other westered nations.
And, minister of defences has been seen as an unimportant post, so that its had people like EVDL as minister of defence.
That's since the end of the Cold War.
During the Cold War, the Germans had a large, well equipped and very competent military. Thousands of tanks, hundred of modern aircraft.
At the end of the Cold War, they stopped modernising. And stuff alot of stuff in warehouses where it wasn't properly mothballed.
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.
Not really controversial: with MAD it pays to be mad, or look as if you might be. So that is a real advantage of Trump, if the only one. Like having the Kray twins on your side in a pub fight - undeniably fabulous at the time but you don't want to progress the relationship any further
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.
You know my view on that. As for the facts....
Obama Presidency - invasion of Ukraine Trump Presidency - nothing Biden Presidency - invasion of Ukraine
The "fact" I saw was Trump with his head so far up Putin's arse that Vlad could have been called the Four Legged President
It's a kind of classic argument tactic of Trump fans to put one aspect of things in the most simplistic of descriptions, and ignore literally everything else that happened. Because the presidency was such a flaming train wreck it can't be defended any other way.
Indeed. Trump's obsequiousness to Putin was an embarrassment to behold. It isn't an unreasonable thing to wonder what was it that Trump felt the need to be in thrall to. Was it that he had finally met a bigger bully than himself, or was it something else?
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.
Could well have had a material influence. Hope so since that was the point of it. I'm arguing against the exaggeration of our influence on this war, not against the fact of it.
And to be clear - in case my vibe is being misread - I support our actions and our policy on this. Help Ukraine in every way short of direct engagement with Russia.
"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."
Oil is easy, because it is (mostly) a tanker driven market. Germany (or wherever) can buy more from Saudi. And the Chinese buy more Russian oil. And a bunch of Norwegian VLCC owners (I'm looking at you John Fredriksen) end up making hundreds of millions of dollars because crude has to travel slightly longer routes and day rates increase.
And there are a large number of slightly shitty oil tankers laid up in various parts of the world.
An LNG tanker captain I worked with said that he liked the LNG trade, because it was one where there were no shitty tankers. Even the most ruthless cost cutter, when presented with the potential for fun, backed off.
That plus, the Captain said, he enjoyed radioing a warning to traffic ahead and watching them scramble out of his way on the radar. Even the sleepiest and most incompetent seaman would wake up when they heard an LNG tanker was heading their way.
I was once on an LNG tanker that was unloading. The pipelines - despite being incredibly well insulated - were still incredibly cold and the passage of the liquid meant they were constantly sucking the heat out of the nearby air.
The consequence of which was that it was snowing on the deck of the LNG carrier, while a few hundred meters away it was a typical British spring day.
(Well, I guess snowing is not quite the right word. The moisture in the air was being converted to ice which was appearing on every surface and being blow around.)
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".
She was surprisingly good. Her reply that she was really upset people would think her a slapper raised her appeal several notches. Her image is so brash yet to show such vulnerability was very human. What's more she has single-handedly floored the Mail. It'll be a long time before any other trashy right wing rag tries to take her on again.
She has bizarrely been quite politically fortunate that this outrageous story has scored such an own goal for the Tories and the Mail. Doesn't change the fact that in the final analysis she is an overpromoted lightweight and completely out of her depth.
I don't think its been mentioned on here but has anybody noticed that the number of people getting vaccinated has ticked up a bit?
115,500 in the last week have had there first jab. a moth ago it was under 35,000 a week. I'm assuming this is people planning on going on holiday and needing proof of vaccination.
Whatever the reason, by next winter there should be a lot less unvaccinated people.
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
You have been consistently disastrously wrong on your reading of this.
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
You have been consistently disastrously wrong on your reading of this.
"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."
Oil is easy, because it is (mostly) a tanker driven market. Germany (or wherever) can buy more from Saudi. And the Chinese buy more Russian oil. And a bunch of Norwegian VLCC owners (I'm looking at you John Fredriksen) end up making hundreds of millions of dollars because crude has to travel slightly longer routes and day rates increase.
And there are a large number of slightly shitty oil tankers laid up in various parts of the world.
An LNG tanker captain I worked with said that he liked the LNG trade, because it was one where there were no shitty tankers. Even the most ruthless cost cutter, when presented with the potential for fun, backed off.
That plus, the Captain said, he enjoyed radioing a warning to traffic ahead and watching them scramble out of his way on the radar. Even the sleepiest and most incompetent seaman would wake up when they heard an LNG tanker was heading their way.
I was once on an LNG tanker that was unloading. The pipelines - despite being incredibly well insulated - were still incredibly cold and the passage of the liquid meant they were constantly sucking the heat out of the nearby air.
The consequence of which was that it was snowing on the deck of the LNG carrier, while a few hundred meters away it was a typical British spring day.
(Well, I guess snowing is not quite the right word. The moisture in the air was being converted to ice which was appearing on every surface and being blow around.)
Indeed. Everything time I remember the LNG days, I think of this....
I don't think its been mentioned on here but has anybody noticed that the number of people getting vaccinated has ticked up a bit?
115,500 in the last week have had there first jab. a moth ago it was under 35,000 a week. I'm assuming this is people planning on going on holiday and needing proof of vaccination.
Whatever the reason, by next winter there should be a lot less unvaccinated people.
I was once on an LNG tanker that was unloading. The pipelines - despite being incredibly well insulated - were still incredibly cold and the passage of the liquid meant they were constantly sucking the heat out of the nearby air.
The consequence of which was that it was snowing on the deck of the LNG carrier, while a few hundred meters away it was a typical British spring day.
(Well, I guess snowing is not quite the right word. The moisture in the air was being converted to ice which was appearing on every surface and being blow around.)
I know someone who runs a fund which invests in infrastructure and data centres, or sometimes both next to each other - the data centre generates lots of heat, the LPG terminal is a great place to get rid of it, and the fund also invests in the solar panel arrays which provide the power.
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.
Sub? Must be joking. Does anyone buy it, apart from cooncil PR departments?
Neil O is an old-fashioned contrarian. Bit like Christopher Hitchens. Not surprising if he's said something that offends Sir Tom's sensibilities. Certainly no paladin for anyone. I think he just has a regard for the sense of Britishness that he and many others feel, and isn't afraid to express it.
If you actually read it you would find out that the story centres on Mr Oliver reportedly going off on GB News and accusing Glasgow Council of planning to remove David Livingstone's statue just because an unfortunate academic happened to mention Livingstone once in a long report on physical links with slavery in GLasgow (the young Livingstone worked in a mill whose owner had links with the sugar trade). Apparently this is an attempt to destroy the Britishness you are talking about.
'[... the TV historian suggested there are efforts under way to “take down” a statue of David Livingstone in Glasgow due to his connections to the slave trade, despite his work on abolition.
In an eight-minute monologue on GB News, former NTS president Oliver used the incident as an example of how there’s an agenda to “run down Britain” and “tear the old place down in its entirety”. In reality, there appeared to be no “bid” to remove the statue.
There was a report commissioned by Glasgow City Council and written by academic Dr Stephen Mullen published in March 2022, which gave detailed examples of the city’s physical links to the slave trade.
In the 119-page document, there is one mention of Livingstone’s statue, explaining how he was connected to the trade.'
"Musk has stated that his first plan is to open-source the algorithm that ranks tweets in the content feed, in order to increase transparency. He has stated intention to remove the spam bots, and to authenticate all real humans"
"Musk has stated that his first plan is to open-source the algorithm that ranks tweets in the content feed, in order to increase transparency. He has stated intention to remove the spam bots, and to authenticate all real humans"
"Musk has stated that his first plan is to open-source the algorithm that ranks tweets in the content feed, in order to increase transparency. He has stated intention to remove the spam bots, and to authenticate all real humans"
His first plan should be to re-do the app so it has an option to see all the tweets of everyone you follow in chronological order, and to remember where you've read up to. That would take away a lot of the usage of third-party apps.
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
You have been consistently disastrously wrong on your reading of this.
@kinabalu : sadly I have to go out, and have not had explanation of @MarqueeMark 's comment so will not be able to find out how your consistent reading "of this" has created disasters. I had no idea you had such influence. Either that or he was being uncharacteristically ironic and decided to be hyperbolic just for the lols.
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
Yep, strengthened France, weakened Britain. It was a good patriotic endeavour, not!
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
Once BJ had with elephantine subtlety attached Ukraine's struggle to Brexit, all good sense and proportion was lost to these types.
Not that they were particulary intimate with them in the first place.
I don't think its been mentioned on here but has anybody noticed that the number of people getting vaccinated has ticked up a bit?
115,500 in the last week have had there first jab. a moth ago it was under 35,000 a week. I'm assuming this is people planning on going on holiday and needing proof of vaccination.
Whatever the reason, by next winter there should be a lot less unvaccinated people.
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
Once BJ had with elephantine subtlety attached Ukraine's struggle to Brexit, all good sense and proportion was lost to these types.
Not that they were particulary intimate with them in the first place.
"These types" being the unreconciled ex-Remainers who can't stand to have a good word said about the UK, right?
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?
There were more. Recent departures from the commons for example.
Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire until 2015) Julian Brazier (Canterbury until 2017)
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
Yep, strengthened France, weakened Britain. It was a good patriotic endeavour, not!
"There are occasional hints from Paris that at least some of the EU trade agreements currently blocked by France – the list includes Mexico, Chile, Australia and New Zealand – may be allowed to proceed after June’s parliamentary elections."
It doesn't require a Damascene conversion on the matter to think that there are political benefits from not being tied into a system that functions like this.
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
Once BJ had with elephantine subtlety attached Ukraine's struggle to Brexit, all good sense and proportion was lost to these types.
Not that they were particulary intimate with them in the first place.
"These types" being the unreconciled ex-Remainers who can't stand to have a good word said about the UK, right?
Bonus 0.5pt for avoiding 'Remoaner'.
Just to gauge your intimacy with proportion, do you think Brexit can be compared to an existential struggle in which thousands of Ukranians have been murdered, tortured and raped while millions have been made refugees?
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
Yep, strengthened France, weakened Britain. It was a good patriotic endeavour, not!
"There are occasional hints from Paris that at least some of the EU trade agreements currently blocked by France – the list includes Mexico, Chile, Australia and New Zealand – may be allowed to proceed after June’s parliamentary elections."
It doesn't require a Damascene conversion on the matter to think that there are political benefits from not being tied into a system that functions like this.
Mexico and the EU already have an FTA, don't they?
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
Yep, strengthened France, weakened Britain. It was a good patriotic endeavour, not!
"There are occasional hints from Paris that at least some of the EU trade agreements currently blocked by France – the list includes Mexico, Chile, Australia and New Zealand – may be allowed to proceed after June’s parliamentary elections."
It doesn't require a Damascene conversion on the matter to think that there are political benefits from not being tied into a system that functions like this.
Mexico and the EU already have an FTA, don't they?
Off topic but lol: I learn from reddit that this is almost entirely the handiwork of a single USA teenager with no knowledge of the Scots language at all. I am no expert but this seems very credible, I seriously doubt "traffeck licht" for instance. If true, incredible misplaced effort and ingenuity.
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
Once BJ had with elephantine subtlety attached Ukraine's struggle to Brexit, all good sense and proportion was lost to these types.
Not that they were particulary intimate with them in the first place.
"These types" being the unreconciled ex-Remainers who can't stand to have a good word said about the UK, right?
Bonus 0.5pt for avoiding 'Remoaner'.
Just to gauge your intimacy with proportion, do you think Brexit can be compared to an existential struggle in which thousands of Ukranians have been murdered, tortured and raped while millions have been made refugees?
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
It is both sad and embarrassing. It is to be our new role in the world. Grabbing onto others shirt tails. My hope is that when Johnson goes this really yucky chauvinism goes with him and we become the classy and thoughtful country we once were
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
Yep, strengthened France, weakened Britain. It was a good patriotic endeavour, not!
"There are occasional hints from Paris that at least some of the EU trade agreements currently blocked by France – the list includes Mexico, Chile, Australia and New Zealand – may be allowed to proceed after June’s parliamentary elections."
It doesn't require a Damascene conversion on the matter to think that there are political benefits from not being tied into a system that functions like this.
Let's see what the deals look like. Will the EU-Australia deal screw over EU farmers to the same extent that ours were by our deal? Somehow I doubt 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. 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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
It is both sad and embarrassing. It is to be our new role in the world. Grabbing onto others shirt tails. My hope is that when Johnson goes this really yucky chauvinism goes with him and we become the classy and thoughtful country we once were
Not as sad and embarrassing as Macron sitting at the end of that long table being lectured by Putin, as if he is going to take any notice of Marcon request, while by own admissions French intelligence services were totally out of the loop about what Russia's plans really were.
"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."
Oil is easy, because it is (mostly) a tanker driven market. Germany (or wherever) can buy more from Saudi. And the Chinese buy more Russian oil. And a bunch of Norwegian VLCC owners (I'm looking at you John Fredriksen) end up making hundreds of millions of dollars because crude has to travel slightly longer routes and day rates increase.
And there are a large number of slightly shitty oil tankers laid up in various parts of the world.
An LNG tanker captain I worked with said that he liked the LNG trade, because it was one where there were no shitty tankers. Even the most ruthless cost cutter, when presented with the potential for fun, backed off.
That plus, the Captain said, he enjoyed radioing a warning to traffic ahead and watching them scramble out of his way on the radar. Even the sleepiest and most incompetent seaman would wake up when they heard an LNG tanker was heading their way.
I was once on an LNG tanker that was unloading. The pipelines - despite being incredibly well insulated - were still incredibly cold and the passage of the liquid meant they were constantly sucking the heat out of the nearby air.
The consequence of which was that it was snowing on the deck of the LNG carrier, while a few hundred meters away it was a typical British spring day.
(Well, I guess snowing is not quite the right word. The moisture in the air was being converted to ice which was appearing on every surface and being blow around.)
I regularly transfer liquid N2 (-198deg C) and get the same effect. I’m only transferring litres over a metre and we don’t insulate the hoses as loss is minimal, but it’s always fun making it snow in summer.
Catching up on this thread, and I am concerned at the level of certainty displayed by so many on Ukraine. I've no idea what the end game will be, and I don't believe anybody else does.
Reading many posts it is as if Ukraine has defeated Russia, with significant help from the UK. I'm in no doubt that the Ukraine resistance is admirable, and that it has not gone the way Russia wanted, or expected, thus far. But the triumphalism from so many is depressing. However this ends up, thousands of Ukrainians will have been murdered, and many of their cities and infrastructure razed to the ground. I just can't find anything much to celebrate or be gung ho about, even though as I said I really do admire the Ukrainian resistance. The suffering of ordinary people is grotesque, and not something I can be sanguine about.
It will, I think, be several years before a sober, objective analysis of the war will be possible. Meanwhile, I for one will not rush to judgement (except on Putin, about whom I share the view that he's an evil tyrant).
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.
You think if there were 'deeds of insane bravery' on the Russian side, they'd be reported in our media? Even with PB's general tenor on this conflict, that's an interesting view. Do you not think that such acts were reported in WW2 because they were on our side? Do you not think we didn't hear great 'deeds of insane bravery' on the part of the Germans for the same reason?
Catching up on this thread, and I am concerned at the level of certainty displayed by so many on Ukraine. I've no idea what the end game will be, and I don't believe anybody else does.
Reading many posts it is as if Ukraine has defeated Russia, with significant help from the UK. I'm in no doubt that the Ukraine resistance is admirable, and that it has not gone the way Russia wanted, or expected, thus far. But the triumphalism from so many is depressing. However this ends up, thousands of Ukrainians will have been murdered, and many of their cities and infrastructure razed to the ground. I just can't find anything much to celebrate or be gung ho about, even though as I said I really do admire the Ukrainian resistance.
It will, I think, be several years before a sober, objective analysis of the war will be possible. Meanwhile, I for one will not rush to judgement.
Who is suggesting Ukraine have won?
What they have done is exposed Russian military as 3rd rate, poorly trained, poorly equipped and managed take some big chunks out of them. However, as long as Russia want it to go on for they can at very least continue to fight a slow horrific war of attrition, deploying WWII tactics to just keep bombarding towns and cities.
The thing that one can take heart from is that Putin isn't going to be able to do an inverse Hitler, there will be no rolling through Eastern Europe.
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.
Zelensky's leadership has been tremendously impressive.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
Once BJ had with elephantine subtlety attached Ukraine's struggle to Brexit, all good sense and proportion was lost to these types.
Not that they were particulary intimate with them in the first place.
"These types" being the unreconciled ex-Remainers who can't stand to have a good word said about the UK, right?
Bonus 0.5pt for avoiding 'Remoaner'.
Just to gauge your intimacy with proportion, do you think Brexit can be compared to an existential struggle in which thousands of Ukranians have been murdered, tortured and raped while millions have been made refugees?
Compared and contrasted, but not equated.
Which bit was the contrasted bit?
'I know that it's the instinct of the people of this country, like the people of Ukraine, to choose freedom, every time. I can give you a couple of famous recent examples. When the British people voted for Brexit in such large, large numbers, I don't believe it was because they were remotely hostile to foreigners. It's because they wanted to be free to do things differently and for this country to be able to run itself.'
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
Yep, strengthened France, weakened Britain. It was a good patriotic endeavour, not!
"There are occasional hints from Paris that at least some of the EU trade agreements currently blocked by France – the list includes Mexico, Chile, Australia and New Zealand – may be allowed to proceed after June’s parliamentary elections."
It doesn't require a Damascene conversion on the matter to think that there are political benefits from not being tied into a system that functions like this.
It does take a Damascene conversion on an absurd scale to clutch at straws and think that Brexit was not pointless when you used to think it was pointless when everyone else (other than a few ostriches) is realising it was, well, pointless
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
Yep, strengthened France, weakened Britain. It was a good patriotic endeavour, not!
"There are occasional hints from Paris that at least some of the EU trade agreements currently blocked by France – the list includes Mexico, Chile, Australia and New Zealand – may be allowed to proceed after June’s parliamentary elections."
It doesn't require a Damascene conversion on the matter to think that there are political benefits from not being tied into a system that functions like this.
It does take a Damascene conversion on an absurd scale to clutch at straws and think that Brexit was not pointless when you used to think it was pointless when everyone else (other than a few ostriches) is realising it was, well, pointless
But it isn't pointless. We have swapped out low skilled immigration for mid skilled immigration. And with the right pressure we have the democratic control to make the government change it to high skill only.
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.
I'm sold! Brexit was worth it after all.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I like the old maroony colour better. I remember in an old Bill Bryson book he lamented the loss of the old passport design (I doubt that impacts his views on the issue today), but I liked them.
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.
You think if there were 'deeds of insane bravery' on the Russian side, they'd be reported in our media? Even with PB's general tenor on this conflict, that's an interesting view. Do you not think that such acts were reported in WW2 because they were on our side? Do you not think we didn't hear great 'deeds of insane bravery' on the part of the Germans for the same reason?
I have, because of Russian relatives, seen some of the pro Russian propaganda. The lack of individual stories of heroism is actually rather interesting.
Many of the videos, which are being sent by pro-Putin relatives of theirs, show rather shambolic soldiers* and ramshackle kit (by Western standards).
It’s been nearly three months since Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, called for Chris Sununu’s head, boasting he was trying to help find someone to primary New Hampshire’s three-term Republican governor.
He isn’t having much luck.
In state after state, Trump has turned the GOP primaries into a referendum on the party’s loyalty to him, endorsing primary challengers against incumbents who refuse to bend the knee, and driving dissenters into early retirement.
But Sununu, who mocked Trump and referred to him as “fucking crazy” at the roast-style Gridiron Club dinner this month, so far appears to be beyond Trump’s reach, a thorn in the former president’s side that he’s been unable to remove.
“You can talk up a storm, and there certainly are people in New Hampshire who are frustrated with Chris Sununu,” said Mike Dennehy, a former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party and former Republican National committeeman from the state. “But the fact of the matter is the guy’s at about 60 percent approval, he’s one of the most popular governors in the country and people in New Hampshire do like him.”
Even for Trump, Dennehy said, getting rid of Sununu is “an almost impossible endeavor to fulfill.”
The latest Saint Anselm College poll put Sununu’s public approval rating at 62 percent, up 9 percentage points from January. He is widely expected to cruise to a fourth term in November.
One longtime GOP activist in New Hampshire described Lewandowski’s hunt for a primary challenger to Sununu as “a lot of thunder, no lightning.”
“He might convince some drunk to do it, but no, he isn’t going to get anybody serious to run against him,” the activist said. “If Trump came out and hand-picked a candidate and endorsed him, it wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans.”
Julian Acciard, a Marine Corps veteran and businessperson in New Hampshire, told POLITICO on Monday that he has spoken in recent weeks with Lewandowski and Fred Doucette, a New Hampshire state lawmaker who was a Trump campaign co-chair in the state. Acciard is switching from running for Congress to running for governor.
“It honestly started out as a joke,” Acciard said.
Catching up on this thread, and I am concerned at the level of certainty displayed by so many on Ukraine. I've no idea what the end game will be, and I don't believe anybody else does.
Reading many posts it is as if Ukraine has defeated Russia, with significant help from the UK. I'm in no doubt that the Ukraine resistance is admirable, and that it has not gone the way Russia wanted, or expected, thus far. But the triumphalism from so many is depressing. However this ends up, thousands of Ukrainians will have been murdered, and many of their cities and infrastructure razed to the ground. I just can't find anything much to celebrate or be gung ho about, even though as I said I really do admire the Ukrainian resistance.
It will, I think, be several years before a sober, objective analysis of the war will be possible. Meanwhile, I for one will not rush to judgement.
Who is suggesting Ukraine have won?
What they have done is exposed Russian military as 3rd rate, poorly trained, poorly equipped and managed take some big chunks out of them. However, as long as Russia want it to go on for they can at very least continue to fight a slow horrific war of attrition, deploying WWII tactics to just keep bombarding towns and cities.
The thing that one can take heart from is that Putin isn't going to be able to do an inverse Hitler, there will be no rolling through Eastern Europe.
Russia cannot sustain a long war of attrition in perpetuity. It's currently Germany in 1916. Another year and they will be going for broke, failing and facing political turmoil at home.
"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."
The competition amongst western allies to show more support and move faster on this issue has been quite handy. Sometimes urging each other on can be a big negative in terms of escalation, and some people rather foolishly in my view suggest that is the case here, but so far I see little downside - allies have not pushed each other into direct involvement, but are ramping up supplies and encouraging firmer domestic actions.
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.
You think if there were 'deeds of insane bravery' on the Russian side, they'd be reported in our media? Even with PB's general tenor on this conflict, that's an interesting view. Do you not think that such acts were reported in WW2 because they were on our side? Do you not think we didn't hear great 'deeds of insane bravery' on the part of the Germans for the same reason?
The internet is open enough that people like you and MISTY would be posting them everywhere on here.
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.
You think if there were 'deeds of insane bravery' on the Russian side, they'd be reported in our media? Even with PB's general tenor on this conflict, that's an interesting view. Do you not think that such acts were reported in WW2 because they were on our side? Do you not think we didn't hear great 'deeds of insane bravery' on the part of the Germans for the same reason?
I have, because of Russian relatives, seen some of the pro Russian propaganda. The lack of individual stories of heroism is actually rather interesting.
Many of the videos, which are being sent by pro-Putin relatives of theirs, show rather shambolic soldiers* and ramshackle kit (by Western standards).
I saw a great one that other day, 3-4 Russian soldiers walking behind an armoured vehicle in the middle of a huge field empty field... No GPS, no map, basically saying where are we, where is everybody else, shouting at the driver to slow down....Dad's Army stuff.
It’s been nearly three months since Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, called for Chris Sununu’s head, boasting he was trying to help find someone to primary New Hampshire’s three-term Republican governor.
He isn’t having much luck.
In state after state, Trump has turned the GOP primaries into a referendum on the party’s loyalty to him, endorsing primary challengers against incumbents who refuse to bend the knee, and driving dissenters into early retirement.
But Sununu, who mocked Trump and referred to him as “fucking crazy” at the roast-style Gridiron Club dinner this month, so far appears to be beyond Trump’s reach, a thorn in the former president’s side that he’s been unable to remove.
“You can talk up a storm, and there certainly are people in New Hampshire who are frustrated with Chris Sununu,” said Mike Dennehy, a former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party and former Republican National committeeman from the state. “But the fact of the matter is the guy’s at about 60 percent approval, he’s one of the most popular governors in the country and people in New Hampshire do like him.”
Even for Trump, Dennehy said, getting rid of Sununu is “an almost impossible endeavor to fulfill.”
The latest Saint Anselm College poll put Sununu’s public approval rating at 62 percent, up 9 percentage points from January. He is widely expected to cruise to a fourth term in November.
One longtime GOP activist in New Hampshire described Lewandowski’s hunt for a primary challenger to Sununu as “a lot of thunder, no lightning.”
“He might convince some drunk to do it, but no, he isn’t going to get anybody serious to run against him,” the activist said. “If Trump came out and hand-picked a candidate and endorsed him, it wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans.”
Julian Acciard, a Marine Corps veteran and businessperson in New Hampshire, told POLITICO on Monday that he has spoken in recent weeks with Lewandowski and Fred Doucette, a New Hampshire state lawmaker who was a Trump campaign co-chair in the state. Acciard is switching from running for Congress to running for governor.
“It honestly started out as a joke,” Acciard said.
SSI - And it's STILL a joke!
Encouraging at least one is not beholden to him them. But would he bend the knee like everyone else when Trump gets the nomination?
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
Yep, strengthened France, weakened Britain. It was a good patriotic endeavour, not!
"There are occasional hints from Paris that at least some of the EU trade agreements currently blocked by France – the list includes Mexico, Chile, Australia and New Zealand – may be allowed to proceed after June’s parliamentary elections."
It doesn't require a Damascene conversion on the matter to think that there are political benefits from not being tied into a system that functions like this.
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
Yep, strengthened France, weakened Britain. It was a good patriotic endeavour, not!
"There are occasional hints from Paris that at least some of the EU trade agreements currently blocked by France – the list includes Mexico, Chile, Australia and New Zealand – may be allowed to proceed after June’s parliamentary elections."
It doesn't require a Damascene conversion on the matter to think that there are political benefits from not being tied into a system that functions like this.
Let's see what the deals look like. Will the EU-Australia deal screw over EU farmers to the same extent that ours were by our deal? Somehow I doubt it.
"Musk has stated that his first plan is to open-source the algorithm that ranks tweets in the content feed, in order to increase transparency. He has stated intention to remove the spam bots, and to authenticate all real humans"
"Musk has stated that his first plan is to open-source the algorithm that ranks tweets in the content feed, in order to increase transparency. He has stated intention to remove the spam bots, and to authenticate all real humans"
Charles Grant is an excellent commentator on European affairs, the CER as a whole is excellent in fact. This piece really highlights how Brexit has strengthened France's role in global affairs, so I guess it hasn't been all bad. 😉
Yep, strengthened France, weakened Britain. It was a good patriotic endeavour, not!
"There are occasional hints from Paris that at least some of the EU trade agreements currently blocked by France – the list includes Mexico, Chile, Australia and New Zealand – may be allowed to proceed after June’s parliamentary elections."
It doesn't require a Damascene conversion on the matter to think that there are political benefits from not being tied into a system that functions like this.
Let's see what the deals look like. Will the EU-Australia deal screw over EU farmers to the same extent that ours were by our deal? Somehow I doubt it.
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.
You think if there were 'deeds of insane bravery' on the Russian side, they'd be reported in our media? Even with PB's general tenor on this conflict, that's an interesting view. Do you not think that such acts were reported in WW2 because they were on our side? Do you not think we didn't hear great 'deeds of insane bravery' on the part of the Germans for the same reason?
The internet is open enough that people like you and MISTY would be posting them everywhere on here.
This is a duff point because I am not seeing tiktoks of acts of insane bravery by Ukrainian soldiers either, more videos of things being blown up at a distance.
Catching up on this thread, and I am concerned at the level of certainty displayed by so many on Ukraine. I've no idea what the end game will be, and I don't believe anybody else does.
Reading many posts it is as if Ukraine has defeated Russia, with significant help from the UK. I'm in no doubt that the Ukraine resistance is admirable, and that it has not gone the way Russia wanted, or expected, thus far. But the triumphalism from so many is depressing. However this ends up, thousands of Ukrainians will have been murdered, and many of their cities and infrastructure razed to the ground. I just can't find anything much to celebrate or be gung ho about, even though as I said I really do admire the Ukrainian resistance. The suffering of ordinary people is grotesque, and not something I can be sanguine about.
It will, I think, be several years before a sober, objective analysis of the war will be possible. Meanwhile, I for one will not rush to judgement (except on Putin, about whom I share the view that he's an evil tyrant).
"Reading many posts it is as if Ukraine has defeated Russia"
Before we talk about winning or losing, victory or defeat, you need to define exactly what the terms mean in the context of this war. Does victory mean you control more territory, or coming out of the war stronger than it was before? Does it mean being stronger on the world stage?
If Russia had reached Kiev on the first or second day, and knocked the country out in four or five days, then the west would not have had time to unite, and it would have been fairly easy for Russia to present the fall of Ukraine as a done thing. We would have thrown a few sanctions at them, but then Germany would still want Russia's gas.
IMV Russia 'lost' the moment they failed in that task. The west had time to unite, inspired by the Ukrainian resistance, and threw much harder sanctions at Russia than I was expecting. These will hurt Russia. Then there is the way their conventional military has been shown to be rather unimpressive, and the material losses they have suffered. Then the fact that Europe is going to rapidly wean itself off Russian oil and gas, hurting their revenues.
Perhaps the only part-feasible way Russia could declare a real victory is if they take over the whole of Ukraine (how?), and then use the oil, gas, fertiliser and grain they control as economic weapons. But that will probably only work for a year or two before countries find alternatives.
I really cannot see a way for Russia to 'win' in the medium term. They could drag us down with them, though...
It’s been nearly three months since Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, called for Chris Sununu’s head, boasting he was trying to help find someone to primary New Hampshire’s three-term Republican governor.
He isn’t having much luck.
In state after state, Trump has turned the GOP primaries into a referendum on the party’s loyalty to him, endorsing primary challengers against incumbents who refuse to bend the knee, and driving dissenters into early retirement.
But Sununu, who mocked Trump and referred to him as “fucking crazy” at the roast-style Gridiron Club dinner this month, so far appears to be beyond Trump’s reach, a thorn in the former president’s side that he’s been unable to remove.
“You can talk up a storm, and there certainly are people in New Hampshire who are frustrated with Chris Sununu,” said Mike Dennehy, a former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party and former Republican National committeeman from the state. “But the fact of the matter is the guy’s at about 60 percent approval, he’s one of the most popular governors in the country and people in New Hampshire do like him.”
Even for Trump, Dennehy said, getting rid of Sununu is “an almost impossible endeavor to fulfill.”
The latest Saint Anselm College poll put Sununu’s public approval rating at 62 percent, up 9 percentage points from January. He is widely expected to cruise to a fourth term in November.
One longtime GOP activist in New Hampshire described Lewandowski’s hunt for a primary challenger to Sununu as “a lot of thunder, no lightning.”
“He might convince some drunk to do it, but no, he isn’t going to get anybody serious to run against him,” the activist said. “If Trump came out and hand-picked a candidate and endorsed him, it wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans.”
Julian Acciard, a Marine Corps veteran and businessperson in New Hampshire, told POLITICO on Monday that he has spoken in recent weeks with Lewandowski and Fred Doucette, a New Hampshire state lawmaker who was a Trump campaign co-chair in the state. Acciard is switching from running for Congress to running for governor.
“It honestly started out as a joke,” Acciard said.
SSI - And it's STILL a joke!
I have a lot of time for Sununu, and hope that not only does he win this November as NH governor, but that he decides to have a go at being president himself in 2 years. probably very long shot teratorys, but I think he would make a good POTUSA
as for a TRUMP accolat unseating him in NH? well in Nov 2020, when the POTUS and NH Goerner elections where on the same day:
Trump - 365,654 (45.4%) Sununu - 516,609 (65.1%)
That's a difference of 250,000 votes or 20% and that was before 'Jan 6'
- Admissions - down, all regions, all age groups - MV beds - down a bit - In Hospital - down - Deaths - down, bit more mixed regional, but trending down, more in the older age groups, of course.
Comments
Obama Presidency - invasion of Ukraine
Trump Presidency - nothing
Biden Presidency - invasion of Ukraine
That has given Ukraine breathing room in which now they are being armed by many countries with a whole arsenal of weaponary to fight more conventional battle. But the initial failure of the Blitzkrieg attack was crucial. While the Ukrainian SoF were NLAWing the shit out of Russian, Germany were still deciding if they should send party hats or not.
And there are plenty of things where we don't have resources at all. So we're always going to be dependent on trade.
Maybe their reluctance has been more about the risk of just handing stuff over to the Russians than not wanting to help Ukraine. Now there seems rather less risk of that, so everyone is going all in.
Edit to add VLCC day rates have risen from $15,000 to $24,000 - which sounds like a lot, but when the pandemic first hit they got as high as $80,000/day.
To go back to the point though and one that Zelensky has said - the UK played a crucial role when it came to the conflict. You only have to go back to Biden's statements pre-invasion how that would have been interpreted in Moscow as the West wouldn't do a huge amount.
In the end, isn't Putin planting the seeds of Russia's own destruction by playing silly b8ggers with gas?
An LNG tanker captain I worked with said that he liked the LNG trade, because it was one where there were no shitty tankers. Even the most ruthless cost cutter, when presented with the potential for fun, backed off.
That plus, the Captain said, he enjoyed radioing a warning to traffic ahead and watching them scramble out of his way on the radar. Even the sleepiest and most incompetent seaman would wake up when they heard an LNG tanker was heading their way.
But look, the situation is that they are fighting Russia and we - the West led by America and very much including the UK - are helping with lethal aid and sanctions and refugees. That's the essence of it.
I don't know why people can't be proud and supportive about our (important) contribution without having to go that extra imaginary mile and start making out that without us Ukraine would be lost and beaten.
And I actually find it a bit tacky, tbh, the equating of Zelensky and Ukraine's efforts to ours.
Ridiculous hyperbole and boosterism seems to feature all the time now, not just with this but with everything. Always 'world beating' or 'a first' or 'the only country doing bla bla' or whatever. It's kind of pathetic if you ask me.
LNG carriers are incredibly specialised vessels, as they carry very large amounts of very cold gas (-165 degrees C). The insulation required to maintain those temperatures irrespective of what's going on outside the vessel is absolutely incredible. (There's some small French company - GTT? - which is the sole supplier of the membranes, which also adds complexity.)
Right now, there are a bunch of LNG ships under construction, and I'm sure more will come, but this is a multi-year issue.
Ukrainian incredible heart and bravery is foremost. But its fact the SoF have been trained by the SAS (and still sre being today), guided by UK / US intelligence services. Now the rest of the world has stepped up.
principally the history since ww2 has left the Germans as a very non militaristic nation, this has let to constantly low budget for defence, which has meant money needed to be saved everywhere, keeping kit in working order has been the biggest shortfall.
Also the germane armed forces have struggled to attracted competent people, laving it less pro-active dynamic that other westered nations.
And, minister of defences has been seen as an unimportant post, so that its had people like EVDL as minister of defence.
Neil O is an old-fashioned contrarian. Bit like Christopher Hitchens. Not surprising if he's said something that offends Sir Tom's sensibilities. Certainly no paladin for anyone. I think he just has a regard for the sense of Britishness that he and many others feel, and isn't afraid to express it.
And yes - whatever happens now, Russia is an unreliable supplier, and big purchasers are going to enter into long contracts with alternatives, just to reduce risk. (Great news for various marginally economic LNG projects around the world.)
I read some quite astonishing stats on the potential of Sahara Desert solar the other day.
During the Cold War, the Germans had a large, well equipped and very competent military. Thousands of tanks, hundred of modern aircraft.
At the end of the Cold War, they stopped modernising. And stuff alot of stuff in warehouses where it wasn't properly mothballed.
And to be clear - in case my vibe is being misread - I support our actions and our policy on this. Help Ukraine in every way short of direct engagement with Russia.
The consequence of which was that it was snowing on the deck of the LNG carrier, while a few hundred meters away it was a typical British spring day.
(Well, I guess snowing is not quite the right word. The moisture in the air was being converted to ice which was appearing on every surface and being blow around.)
115,500 in the last week have had there first jab. a moth ago it was under 35,000 a week. I'm assuming this is people planning on going on holiday and needing proof of vaccination.
Whatever the reason, by next winter there should be a lot less unvaccinated people.
'[... the TV historian suggested there are efforts under way to “take down” a statue of David Livingstone in Glasgow due to his connections to the slave trade, despite his work on abolition.
In an eight-minute monologue on GB News, former NTS president Oliver used the incident as an example of how there’s an agenda to “run down Britain” and “tear the old place down in its entirety”. In reality, there appeared to be no “bid” to remove the statue.
There was a report commissioned by Glasgow City Council and written by academic Dr Stephen Mullen published in March 2022, which gave detailed examples of the city’s physical links to the slave trade.
In the 119-page document, there is one mention of Livingstone’s statue, explaining how he was connected to the trade.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter#2022–present:_Acquisition_by_Elon_Musk
If Musk can get rid of the bots it'll be one of the best things that's ever happened on the internet.
Not that they were particulary intimate with them in the first place.
Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire until 2015)
Julian Brazier (Canterbury until 2017)
It doesn't require a Damascene conversion on the matter to think that there are political benefits from not being tied into a system that functions like this.
Just to gauge your intimacy with proportion, do you think Brexit can be compared to an existential struggle in which thousands of Ukranians have been murdered, tortured and raped while millions have been made refugees?
Edit to add, yes they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade_Agreement_between_Mexico_and_the_European_Union and have had since 2000
Off topic but lol: I learn from reddit that this is almost entirely the handiwork of a single USA teenager with no knowledge of the Scots language at all. I am no expert but this seems very credible, I seriously doubt "traffeck licht" for instance. If true, incredible misplaced effort and ingenuity.
Reading many posts it is as if Ukraine has defeated Russia, with significant help from the UK. I'm in no doubt that the Ukraine resistance is admirable, and that it has not gone the way Russia wanted, or expected, thus far. But the triumphalism from so many is depressing. However this ends up, thousands of Ukrainians will have been murdered, and many of their cities and infrastructure razed to the ground. I just can't find anything much to celebrate or be gung ho about, even though as I said I really do admire the Ukrainian resistance. The suffering of ordinary people is grotesque, and not something I can be sanguine about.
It will, I think, be several years before a sober, objective analysis of the war will be possible. Meanwhile, I for one will not rush to judgement (except on Putin, about whom I share the view that he's an evil tyrant).
What they have done is exposed Russian military as 3rd rate, poorly trained, poorly equipped and managed take some big chunks out of them. However, as long as Russia want it to go on for they can at very least continue to fight a slow horrific war of attrition, deploying WWII tactics to just keep bombarding towns and cities.
The thing that one can take heart from is that Putin isn't going to be able to do an inverse Hitler, there will be no rolling through Eastern Europe.
'I know that it's the instinct of the people of this country, like the people of Ukraine, to choose freedom, every time. I can give you a couple of famous recent examples.
When the British people voted for Brexit in such large, large numbers, I don't believe it was because they were remotely hostile to foreigners.
It's because they wanted to be free to do things differently and for this country to be able to run itself.'
https://www.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/12599182/emma-raducanu-splits-with-coach-torben-beltz-after-only-five-months-together
Many of the videos, which are being sent by pro-Putin relatives of theirs, show rather shambolic soldiers* and ramshackle kit (by Western standards).
New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu remains a thorn in the former president's side.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/26/sununu-bucks-trump-in-2024-00027612
It’s been nearly three months since Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, called for Chris Sununu’s head, boasting he was trying to help find someone to primary New Hampshire’s three-term Republican governor.
He isn’t having much luck.
In state after state, Trump has turned the GOP primaries into a referendum on the party’s loyalty to him, endorsing primary challengers against incumbents who refuse to bend the knee, and driving dissenters into early retirement.
But Sununu, who mocked Trump and referred to him as “fucking crazy” at the roast-style Gridiron Club dinner this month, so far appears to be beyond Trump’s reach, a thorn in the former president’s side that he’s been unable to remove.
“You can talk up a storm, and there certainly are people in New Hampshire who are frustrated with Chris Sununu,” said Mike Dennehy, a former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party and former Republican National committeeman from the state. “But the fact of the matter is the guy’s at about 60 percent approval, he’s one of the most popular governors in the country and people in New Hampshire do like him.”
Even for Trump, Dennehy said, getting rid of Sununu is “an almost impossible endeavor to fulfill.”
The latest Saint Anselm College poll put Sununu’s public approval rating at 62 percent, up 9 percentage points from January. He is widely expected to cruise to a fourth term in November.
One longtime GOP activist in New Hampshire described Lewandowski’s hunt for a primary challenger to Sununu as “a lot of thunder, no lightning.”
“He might convince some drunk to do it, but no, he isn’t going to get anybody serious to run against him,” the activist said. “If Trump came out and hand-picked a candidate and endorsed him, it wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans.”
Julian Acciard, a Marine Corps veteran and businessperson in New Hampshire, told POLITICO on Monday that he has spoken in recent weeks with Lewandowski and Fred Doucette, a New Hampshire state lawmaker who was a Trump campaign co-chair in the state. Acciard is switching from running for Congress to running for governor.
“It honestly started out as a joke,” Acciard said.
SSI - And it's STILL a joke!
Before we talk about winning or losing, victory or defeat, you need to define exactly what the terms mean in the context of this war. Does victory mean you control more territory, or coming out of the war stronger than it was before? Does it mean being stronger on the world stage?
If Russia had reached Kiev on the first or second day, and knocked the country out in four or five days, then the west would not have had time to unite, and it would have been fairly easy for Russia to present the fall of Ukraine as a done thing. We would have thrown a few sanctions at them, but then Germany would still want Russia's gas.
IMV Russia 'lost' the moment they failed in that task. The west had time to unite, inspired by the Ukrainian resistance, and threw much harder sanctions at Russia than I was expecting. These will hurt Russia. Then there is the way their conventional military has been shown to be rather unimpressive, and the material losses they have suffered. Then the fact that Europe is going to rapidly wean itself off Russian oil and gas, hurting their revenues.
Perhaps the only part-feasible way Russia could declare a real victory is if they take over the whole of Ukraine (how?), and then use the oil, gas, fertiliser and grain they control as economic weapons. But that will probably only work for a year or two before countries find alternatives.
I really cannot see a way for Russia to 'win' in the medium term. They could drag us down with them, though...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/26/denmark-becomes-first-country-suspend-covid-vaccine-programme/
as for a TRUMP accolat unseating him in NH? well in Nov 2020, when the POTUS and NH Goerner elections where on the same day:
Trump - 365,654 (45.4%)
Sununu - 516,609 (65.1%)
That's a difference of 250,000 votes or 20% and that was before 'Jan 6'
- Admissions - down, all regions, all age groups
- MV beds - down a bit
- In Hospital - down
- Deaths - down, bit more mixed regional, but trending down, more in the older age groups, of course.