Some 46% of Americans - including 70% of Democrats and 24% of Republicans - approve of Biden's performance on Ukraine
Just narrow, unthinking partisanship, perhaps? More recently it feels like a Dem president could walk on water (this one doesn't, I might add) but roughly half the country will think they're a baby-murdering shit. And probably a Satanist. Or worse, an atheist.
As an outsider, it feels that as soon as something falls into the American political crevice you immediately get 40% thinking it's the worst thing ever and 40% thinking it's the best thing ever.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
You seem to have very binary takes on things. There are different levels of loss and victory surely? it's not like it makes no difference if a loss is made to cost the winner a lot. That might prevent victories elsewhere for a start - by tying up resources.
Taking your logic that a loss is a loss and the rest is just PR and though you're not suggesting it it seems like Ukraine really should just surrender entirely, on the basis that they cannot win ergo they will lose.
I also dont quite get the point about PR. PR doesnt seem like nothing either, Russian PR and Ukrainian PR contributes to willingness to keep up the fight and gain stuff from domestic support and allies. No one takes PR at face value, but both use it and are you saying that morale never matters?
“Cost of living crisis: Changes to childcare and MOT rules considered to help budgets”
Note: only suggestions are stuff that doesn’t cost the treasury anything. Number 10/11 don’t get it. This is an existential crisis for the government.
Yes, that’s the whole point.
They’re looking for regulations that impose costs on everyday life, but can be fixed without costing the Treasury money. Many of them will be gold-plated EU regulations sent through Parliament on the nod, rather than debated properly at the time.
It’s exactly the sort of thing the government should be doing.
It's remarkable how many people seem to be of the impression that it only counts if it costs the Treasury something.
Who do they think funds the Treasury?
If the Treasury has money to help then it should be reversing the tax rise, putting up taxes in order to give a fraction of our own money back to us isn't productive.
A child care manager was interviewed this morning on the suggestion HMG may remove the restriction on the number of children under the child carer and said that HMG need to increase the grant per child to reduce the cost to the parents
It was lost on her that for HMG to remit more than higher taxes are needed from just those same parents
Taxes don't have to fall on young people with small children. Not unless you are a retired Tory admiring your triple lock pension.
So only tories get a triple lock pension?
Receiving the TLP does rather require an age of mid-60s and above - ergo, far more likely to be a Tory voter. Which the Tories have evidently noticed.
So Labour will have a policy to reduce the OAP at the next election?
Of course they won't.
That's not the point - you were claiming that there is no link between Tory voting and the TLP which is nonsense.
I did not claim that, it was said that only Tory voting pensioners were happy to receive the TLP. I am sure there are Labour voting pensioners who are happy with the TLP and do not pay voluntary tax to the treasury
Foxy didn't say that. The point is tyhat the TLP is a specifically Conservative policy about which they have made a great deal in their electoral campaigning. Ergo it is something Conservative voters like in particular (or so the Tories evidently think). Which makes sense as it benefits many more Conservative than Labour voters.
Csnt say I'm a huge fan of regionalism outside of local level, if we had it everywhere it'd be chaos, but good luck David for a good showing.
We already have problems because Northern Ireland and Scotland have basically opted out of the national debate at Westminster in favour not "goodies for our patch".
Devolution of policy, rather; and there is Wales of course.
“Cost of living crisis: Changes to childcare and MOT rules considered to help budgets”
Note: only suggestions are stuff that doesn’t cost the treasury anything. Number 10/11 don’t get it. This is an existential crisis for the government.
Yes, that’s the whole point.
They’re looking for regulations that impose costs on everyday life, but can be fixed without costing the Treasury money. Many of them will be gold-plated EU regulations sent through Parliament on the nod, rather than debated properly at the time.
It’s exactly the sort of thing the government should be doing.
It's remarkable how many people seem to be of the impression that it only counts if it costs the Treasury something.
Who do they think funds the Treasury?
If the Treasury has money to help then it should be reversing the tax rise, putting up taxes in order to give a fraction of our own money back to us isn't productive.
A child care manager was interviewed this morning on the suggestion HMG may remove the restriction on the number of children under the child carer and said that HMG need to increase the grant per child to reduce the cost to the parents
It was lost on her that for HMG to remit more than higher taxes are needed from just those same parents
Taxes don't have to fall on young people with small children. Not unless you are a retired Tory admiring your triple lock pension.
So only tories get a triple lock pension?
Receiving the TLP does rather require an age of mid-60s and above - ergo, far more likely to be a Tory voter. Which the Tories have evidently noticed.
So Labour will have a policy to reduce the OAP at the next election?
Of course they won't.
That's not the point - you were claiming that there is no link between Tory voting and the TLP which is nonsense.
I did not claim that, it was said that only Tory voting pensioners were happy to receive the TLP. I am sure there are Labour voting pensioners who are happy with the TLP and do not pay voluntary tax to the treasury
Foxy didn't say that. The point is tyhat the TLP is a specifically Conservative policy about which they have made a great deal in their electoral campaigning. Ergo it is something Conservative voters like in particular (or so the Tories evidently think). Which makes sense as it benefits many more Conservative than Labour voters.
“Cost of living crisis: Changes to childcare and MOT rules considered to help budgets”
Note: only suggestions are stuff that doesn’t cost the treasury anything. Number 10/11 don’t get it. This is an existential crisis for the government.
Yes, that’s the whole point.
They’re looking for regulations that impose costs on everyday life, but can be fixed without costing the Treasury money. Many of them will be gold-plated EU regulations sent through Parliament on the nod, rather than debated properly at the time.
It’s exactly the sort of thing the government should be doing.
It's remarkable how many people seem to be of the impression that it only counts if it costs the Treasury something.
Who do they think funds the Treasury?
If the Treasury has money to help then it should be reversing the tax rise, putting up taxes in order to give a fraction of our own money back to us isn't productive.
A child care manager was interviewed this morning on the suggestion HMG may remove the restriction on the number of children under the child carer and said that HMG need to increase the grant per child to reduce the cost to the parents
It was lost on her that for HMG to remit more than higher taxes are needed from just those same parents
Taxes don't have to fall on young people with small children. Not unless you are a retired Tory admiring your triple lock pension.
Not sure about triple lock but my state pension rose by 3.1% this month
You cannot dramatically increase spending on health, social and care costs without increasing taxes
1.1% more than NHS staff are offered, 2.35% more if you include the NI surcharge.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
“Cost of living crisis: Changes to childcare and MOT rules considered to help budgets”
Note: only suggestions are stuff that doesn’t cost the treasury anything. Number 10/11 don’t get it. This is an existential crisis for the government.
Yes, that’s the whole point.
They’re looking for regulations that impose costs on everyday life, but can be fixed without costing the Treasury money. Many of them will be gold-plated EU regulations sent through Parliament on the nod, rather than debated properly at the time.
It’s exactly the sort of thing the government should be doing.
It's remarkable how many people seem to be of the impression that it only counts if it costs the Treasury something.
Who do they think funds the Treasury?
If the Treasury has money to help then it should be reversing the tax rise, putting up taxes in order to give a fraction of our own money back to us isn't productive.
A child care manager was interviewed this morning on the suggestion HMG may remove the restriction on the number of children under the child carer and said that HMG need to increase the grant per child to reduce the cost to the parents
It was lost on her that for HMG to remit more than higher taxes are needed from just those same parents
Taxes don't have to fall on young people with small children. Not unless you are a retired Tory admiring your triple lock pension.
So only tories get a triple lock pension?
Receiving the TLP does rather require an age of mid-60s and above - ergo, far more likely to be a Tory voter. Which the Tories have evidently noticed.
So Labour will have a policy to reduce the OAP at the next election?
Of course they won't.
That's not the point - you were claiming that there is no link between Tory voting and the TLP which is nonsense.
I did not claim that, it was said that only Tory voting pensioners were happy to receive the TLP. I am sure there are Labour voting pensioners who are happy with the TLP and do not pay voluntary tax to the treasury
Foxy didn't say that. The point is tyhat the TLP is a specifically Conservative policy about which they have made a great deal in their electoral campaigning. Ergo it is something Conservative voters like in particular (or so the Tories evidently think). Which makes sense as it benefits many more Conservative than Labour voters.
Doesn't it benefit all the elderly no matter who they vote for?
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
Not..... yet. The vessel involved in that escapade is now at the bottom of the Black Sea.
Not quite sure what it is the large number of Republicans who agree with Biden's policy find so disappointing about his performance on Ukraine.
Putin appeals greatly to the emergent and increasing dominant 'Dark MAGA' strand of Republican thought. Hates woke, has a combover, fucks shit up. He's everything the deplorables treasure in a leader.
“Cost of living crisis: Changes to childcare and MOT rules considered to help budgets”
Note: only suggestions are stuff that doesn’t cost the treasury anything. Number 10/11 don’t get it. This is an existential crisis for the government.
Yes, that’s the whole point.
They’re looking for regulations that impose costs on everyday life, but can be fixed without costing the Treasury money. Many of them will be gold-plated EU regulations sent through Parliament on the nod, rather than debated properly at the time.
It’s exactly the sort of thing the government should be doing.
It's remarkable how many people seem to be of the impression that it only counts if it costs the Treasury something.
Who do they think funds the Treasury?
If the Treasury has money to help then it should be reversing the tax rise, putting up taxes in order to give a fraction of our own money back to us isn't productive.
A child care manager was interviewed this morning on the suggestion HMG may remove the restriction on the number of children under the child carer and said that HMG need to increase the grant per child to reduce the cost to the parents
It was lost on her that for HMG to remit more than higher taxes are needed from just those same parents
Taxes don't have to fall on young people with small children. Not unless you are a retired Tory admiring your triple lock pension.
So only tories get a triple lock pension?
Receiving the TLP does rather require an age of mid-60s and above - ergo, far more likely to be a Tory voter. Which the Tories have evidently noticed.
So Labour will have a policy to reduce the OAP at the next election?
Of course they won't.
That's not the point - you were claiming that there is no link between Tory voting and the TLP which is nonsense.
I did not claim that, it was said that only Tory voting pensioners were happy to receive the TLP. I am sure there are Labour voting pensioners who are happy with the TLP and do not pay voluntary tax to the treasury
Foxy didn't say that. The point is tyhat the TLP is a specifically Conservative policy about which they have made a great deal in their electoral campaigning. Ergo it is something Conservative voters like in particular (or so the Tories evidently think). Which makes sense as it benefits many more Conservative than Labour voters.
I thought it was originally a Lib Dem policy, which the Conservatives originally opposed strongly, but then realised it was working and was popular - so it became a Conservative policy, of course.
Conservative councillor on Elmbridge for the last 23 years but who resigned from the Conservative group this year has written to the residents urging them to vote LD. Not good news for Raab.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
Not..... yet. The vessel involved in that escapade is now at the bottom of the Black Sea.
My take on this is that Ukraine pulled a strategic victory by surviving. Think Finland in the Winter War.
It's fairly obvious that the original Russian plan was a quick coup de main followed by occupation of much of Ukraine.
The Russians have been forced to abandon any hope of taking Kyiv and have trying to take the East and the coast, instead.
The Russians are still taking ground. But it is far closer to a fair fight than anyone predicted.
As to popular support in Russia. I keep coming back to the Ceaușescu video. If Putin's support collapses, it will be sudden. But as a result of a hollowing out of belief in the individuals making up the mass - and that will be over time.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
Not..... yet. The vessel involved in that escapade is now at the bottom of the Black Sea.
My take on this is that Ukraine pulled a strategic victory by surviving. Think Finland in the Winter War.
It's fairly obvious that the original Russian plan was a quick coup de main followed by occupation of much of Ukraine.
The Russians have been forced to abandon any hope of taking Kyiv and have trying to take the East and the coast, instead.
The Russians are still taking ground. But it is far closer to a fair fight than anyone predicted.
As to popular support in Russia. I keep coming back to the Ceaușescu video. If Putin's support collapses, it will be sudden. But as a result of a hollowing out of belief in the individuals making up the mass - and that will be over time.
Possibly. @Dura_Ace is right to the extent that the outcome of the war is still in the balance. I don't think there's any certain outcome, even though I am fairly optimistic that Ukraine will succeed in pushing back the invasion with the western aid it's receiving.
The future of Russia (other than remaining grim) is even more unknowable.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
Not..... yet. The vessel involved in that escapade is now at the bottom of the Black Sea.
My take on this is that Ukraine pulled a strategic victory by surviving. Think Finland in the Winter War.
It's fairly obvious that the original Russian plan was a quick coup de main followed by occupation of much of Ukraine.
The Russians have been forced to abandon any hope of taking Kyiv and have trying to take the East and the coast, instead.
The Russians are still taking ground. But it is far closer to a fair fight than anyone predicted.
As to popular support in Russia. I keep coming back to the Ceaușescu video. If Putin's support collapses, it will be sudden. But as a result of a hollowing out of belief in the individuals making up the mass - and that will be over time.
What to make of these moves in Moldova. Is the idea to form a pincer movement on Odessa? Or is this just opening up another front to the detriment of the existing unwinnable mission? What will nato do I wonder. In Ukraine there was a cohesive and competent military to feed Nato resources into. I don’t get the same sense about Moldova.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
Not..... yet. The vessel involved in that escapade is now at the bottom of the Black Sea.
My take on this is that Ukraine pulled a strategic victory by surviving. Think Finland in the Winter War.
It's fairly obvious that the original Russian plan was a quick coup de main followed by occupation of much of Ukraine.
The Russians have been forced to abandon any hope of taking Kyiv and have trying to take the East and the coast, instead.
The Russians are still taking ground. But it is far closer to a fair fight than anyone predicted.
As to popular support in Russia. I keep coming back to the Ceaușescu video. If Putin's support collapses, it will be sudden. But as a result of a hollowing out of belief in the individuals making up the mass - and that will be over time.
Possibly. @Dura_Ace is right to the extent that the outcome of the war is still in the balance. I don't think there's any certain outcome, even though I am fairly optimistic that Ukraine will succeed in pushing back the invasion with the western aid it's receiving.
The future of Russia (other than remaining grim) is even more unknowable.
I'm actually not so sure about pushing back in the East - the Russians are much closer to their railheads there (critical for their supplies). and have simplified their task. In addition, taking ground in the East is vital to Putin claiming a victory of some kind.
I'm not sure that even a reinforced Ukraine can do much there, other than hold the line.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
One of the skills of a poltical leader is to hold different sttrands of the party together in a coalition broad enough to win a majority. On these boards we have @david_herdson, @Richard_Nabavi and @TSE as well as, no doubt many others, who are life long Conservatives who have walked away. Boris has shown almost no interest in chasing them or wooing them back. His brutal but effective decapitations of the remainer wing of the Tories before the 2019 election remains his last word on the matter.
In 2019 many of these Tories reluctantly voted for the party because the alternative was Corbyn who was truly repugnant. It seems increasingly unlikely that they will do so again. I personally have always been a one nation Tory, or a wet as Maggie used to call them. I did think it was important for our democracy that the decision of the British people, having been asked, be honoured and the shameful behaviour of the remainer Parliament needed a very strong response but the aubsequent failure to bind the wounds, to find consensus, to bring people back into the tent is going to cost the Tory party dear, and not just in terms of votes. It is a failure of leadership.
I agree and sadly I think Boris won't go until the Tories are in opposition again and they can rebuild from there.
I don't know how long that will take.
A major part of the problem is the increase of populism in western politics. We see the same problem in the US with Trump. A really strong brand like Boris or Trump seems able to take over a party and destroy the consenses and collegiality that had held it together.
I have been thinking about this quite a lot. My provisional view is that this has been a consequence of a lack of ideology in politics. The broadly capitalist but state interventionist, rather more mercantile view of politics has won pretty much everywhere in the west. It is under threat from the rise of autarkies and dictatorships in other parts of the world but none of those offer a model that has even a remotely significant following in the west. In the absence of ideology personality has come to the fore. This creates extreme partisanship in favour or against the chosen one. Western political parties are really struggling to come to terms with this and institutions which have been a bedrock of our democratic system for many decades at least have been proven to be surprisingly fragile. Our democracy is vulnerable right now.
The non-Populists tend to be as self-serving as the Populists.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
On the face of it, Russia has a achieved a poor return on the amount of men and material which they've expended.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
There’s a little known fact about Twitter. It does not commission posts and articles itself but merely provides a platform for people to post from. Including some of the worlds preeminent experts in their field.
It’s not our fault if you’re too lazy to seek out a range of these accounts concerning the Russian invasion to understand what’s happening better.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
Success = Outcome - Expectations
Ukraine is winning because Russia was expected to crush Ukraine and occupy the country, blitzkrieging the capital from the North.
Instead Ukraine have survived the onslaught and Russia have already undergone a humiliating retreat from Kyiv.
Now Russia is trying to make very limited gains in the East. They've already lost once, we will see what happens next.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
Not..... yet. The vessel involved in that escapade is now at the bottom of the Black Sea.
My take on this is that Ukraine pulled a strategic victory by surviving. Think Finland in the Winter War.
It's fairly obvious that the original Russian plan was a quick coup de main followed by occupation of much of Ukraine.
The Russians have been forced to abandon any hope of taking Kyiv and have trying to take the East and the coast, instead.
The Russians are still taking ground. But it is far closer to a fair fight than anyone predicted.
As to popular support in Russia. I keep coming back to the Ceaușescu video. If Putin's support collapses, it will be sudden. But as a result of a hollowing out of belief in the individuals making up the mass - and that will be over time.
Possibly. @Dura_Ace is right to the extent that the outcome of the war is still in the balance. I don't think there's any certain outcome, even though I am fairly optimistic that Ukraine will succeed in pushing back the invasion with the western aid it's receiving.
It's notable how the composition of the weapons being shoveled into Ukraine has changed over the last few weeks. The USA, Canada, France, Australia and the Netherlands have all supplied 155mm heavy metal.
Though Baldy Ben considered then declined to send AS90s and put some LR Defenders their way instead. LOL. Let's hope the Ukrainians have some squaddies with the necessary three elbows in one arm needed for the weekly replacement of the fuel pressure regulator.
One of the skills of a poltical leader is to hold different sttrands of the party together in a coalition broad enough to win a majority. On these boards we have @david_herdson, @Richard_Nabavi and @TSE as well as, no doubt many others, who are life long Conservatives who have walked away. Boris has shown almost no interest in chasing them or wooing them back. His brutal but effective decapitations of the remainer wing of the Tories before the 2019 election remains his last word on the matter.
In 2019 many of these Tories reluctantly voted for the party because the alternative was Corbyn who was truly repugnant. It seems increasingly unlikely that they will do so again. I personally have always been a one nation Tory, or a wet as Maggie used to call them. I did think it was important for our democracy that the decision of the British people, having been asked, be honoured and the shameful behaviour of the remainer Parliament needed a very strong response but the aubsequent failure to bind the wounds, to find consensus, to bring people back into the tent is going to cost the Tory party dear, and not just in terms of votes. It is a failure of leadership.
I agree and sadly I think Boris won't go until the Tories are in opposition again and they can rebuild from there.
I don't know how long that will take.
A major part of the problem is the increase of populism in western politics. We see the same problem in the US with Trump. A really strong brand like Boris or Trump seems able to take over a party and destroy the consenses and collegiality that had held it together.
I have been thinking about this quite a lot. My provisional view is that this has been a consequence of a lack of ideology in politics. The broadly capitalist but state interventionist, rather more mercantile view of politics has won pretty much everywhere in the west. It is under threat from the rise of autarkies and dictatorships in other parts of the world but none of those offer a model that has even a remotely significant following in the west. In the absence of ideology personality has come to the fore. This creates extreme partisanship in favour or against the chosen one. Western political parties are really struggling to come to terms with this and institutions which have been a bedrock of our democratic system for many decades at least have been proven to be surprisingly fragile. Our democracy is vulnerable right now.
The non-Populists tend to be as self-serving as the Populists.
All politicians are Populists, just the term is thrown as a term of abuse against certain people's political opponents.
I can't think of a single election winner ever who didn't have an element of populism in their appeal, just who they phrased as the elites they were against and who they phrased as the ordinary people whose votes they sought changed.
On topic, even as a proud Yorkshire man I'm afraid I wouldn't vote for David in Wakefield. However, I'd be delighted if he pushed the Tories into third place.
I expect Labour to win as they will throw absolutely everything at it, with battalions of lefties from Leeds and elsewhere recruited to get the vote out. They do need to ensure they have the right candidate, though.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
On the face of it, Russia has a achieved a poor return on the amount of men and material which they've expended.
Yes, Russia may well wind up with the Donbas, Kherson and Azov coast, at the cost of an ongoing attritional stalemate, occupying wasteland with embittered locals, with no end to sanctions and an army mauled and unable to fight elsewhere.
Perhaps the biggest cost will be diplomatic, with 80% of the Ukraine as permanent enemies, armed by NATO and part of the EU.
And that Phyrric victory is their best possible outcome.
In a war with NATO, Russia “would have conventional superiority for a limited period” ... For Russian generals, the hope is that their revived strength means that the nukes are never needed.
[NATO's] planners, and the national politicians that set military budgets and priorities, need to adjust their strategies and spending in the light of these new threats.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine in February, I'd probably have agreed with a lot of that article, for several reasons:
*) Russia's performance against Ukraine since 2014 had been good (although AIUI the LOC had been pretty static for years.)
*) Russia was gaining lots of combat experience in Syria (sadly for them, it now appears they lost lots of material as well. They expended loads of missiles destroying cities there.)
*) Lots of shiny weapons that make you go "Oooohhh!" (But it appears they cannot make enough of them to make a difference.)
*) Russia had stacks of weapons and, in the last decade, a highly-trained force. (Now, it appears much of this was a lie - and they were lying to themselves as much as to the west. Their doctrine is stale.)
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
I've been listening to the Ukraine podcasts from the Telegraph. Their defence editor is still incredulous at how bad the Russian campaign has been. There was something about a Ukrainian ammunition warehouse that was hit recently, and he couldn't understand why it hadn't been a target in the first few days. He went on quite the rant about it.
Everyone was dazzled by the Potemkin show, but then made assumptions about organisational competence which is where the Russians seem to have really fallen short.
They're in the ninth week of the war and still hitting fixed targets that should have been on a pre-war target list.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
Success = Outcome - Expectations
Ukraine is winning because Russia was expected to crush Ukraine and occupy the country, blitzkrieging the capital from the North.
Instead Ukraine have survived the onslaught and Russia have already undergone a humiliating retreat from Kyiv.
Now Russia is trying to make very limited gains in the East. They've already lost once, we will see what happens next.
Yes and no. Let's say Russia expected to roll over the Ukrainians and be in control of an Afghan-type situation by now (if that was their aim as several analysts, scratching their heads, thought it might be). That hasn't happened and hence we refer to your equation.
But this is not a paper exercise when we show that because of this Ukraine is winning trebles all round. This is a war and there is no pre-determined ending and on those terms that equation is meaningless as Russia continues to fight and so does Ukraine with losses incurred on both sides.
There is a focus on Kyiv - fine. But it is as pointless as focusing on the Battle of Arnhem. War is fluid and unknowable. Not an inevitable series of events which lead to a given conclusion.
In a war with NATO, Russia “would have conventional superiority for a limited period” ... For Russian generals, the hope is that their revived strength means that the nukes are never needed.
[NATO's] planners, and the national politicians that set military budgets and priorities, need to adjust their strategies and spending in the light of these new threats.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine in February, I'd probably have agreed with a lot of that article, for several reasons:
*) Russia's performance against Ukraine since 2014 had been good (although AIUI the LOC had been pretty static for years.)
*) Russia was gaining lots of combat experience in Syria (sadly for them, it now appears they lost lots of material as well. They expended loads of missiles destroying cities there.)
*) Lots of shiny weapons that make you go "Oooohhh!" (But it appears they cannot make enough of them to make a difference.)
*) Russia had stacks of weapons and, in the last decade, a highly-trained force. (Now, it appears much of this was a lie - and they were lying to themselves as much as to the west. Their doctrine is stale.)
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
I've been listening to the Ukraine podcasts from the Telegraph. Their defence editor is still incredulous at how bad the Russian campaign has been. There was something about a Ukrainian ammunition warehouse that was hit recently, and he couldn't understand why it hadn't been a target in the first few days. He went on quite the rant about it.
Everyone was dazzled by the Potemkin show, but then made assumptions about organisational competence which is where the Russians seem to have really fallen short.
They're in the ninth week of the war and still hitting fixed targets that should have been on a pre-war target list.
One can only assume they expected to take Ukraine pretty much intact. With its military logistics infrastructure to be deployed in a further push westwards.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
Success = Outcome - Expectations
Ukraine is winning because Russia was expected to crush Ukraine and occupy the country, blitzkrieging the capital from the North.
Instead Ukraine have survived the onslaught and Russia have already undergone a humiliating retreat from Kyiv.
Now Russia is trying to make very limited gains in the East. They've already lost once, we will see what happens next.
Yes and no. Let's say Russia expected to roll over the Ukrainians and be in control of an Afghan-type situation by now (if that was their aim as several analysts, scratching their heads, thought it might be). That hasn't happened and hence we refer to your equation.
But this is not a paper exercise when we show that because of this Ukraine is winning trebles all round. This is a war and there is no pre-determined ending and on those terms that equation is meaningless as Russia continues to fight and so does Ukraine with losses incurred on both sides.
There is a focus on Kyiv - fine. But it is as pointless as focusing on the Battle of Arnhem. War is fluid and unknowable. Not an inevitable series of events which lead to a given conclusion.
Yes the future is unknowable, which is why I ended by comment by "we will see what happens next" but the past and present is knowable.
Russia has already undergone a retreat from Kyiv. That is a fact. They may gain Mariupol and the coast at great expense but that is at best a Pyhrric victory for them under the circumstances and is not what they started the war for.
I've lived through two sea changes in UK political life: 1979 and 1997.
I am certain we are now experiencing the third.
Really? Didn’t build up to 1992 look like sea change to you at the time r, whilst in late 70’s it looked like Labour could even survive for much that build up?
This is 1992 saying hello! Yet again. 😆
Both Labour 79 and Tory’s 97 both had no majority, let along a whopping one from most previous election.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
It's expectations management now. I don't see these results being anywhere near that poor for the Tories. Expect Boris vindicated! Let's move on! From Friday week.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Nuclear weapons are not a deal maker, nor are they the be all and end all.
Nuclear weapons didn't stop Russia from losing the invasion of Kyiv and retreating from that.
Russia have already had to retreat once. Nukes didn't stop that.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Nuclear weapons are not a deal maker, nor are they the be all and end all.
Nuclear weapons didn't stop Russia from losing the invasion of Kyiv and retreating from that.
Russia have already had to retreat once. Nukes didn't stop that.
If it wasn’t for nuclear weapons there would now be the most hideous conventional war ever seen happening to us in Europe. Nuclear weapons deter such horrors.
I've lived through two sea changes in UK political life: 1979 and 1997.
I am certain we are now experiencing the third.
Really? Didn’t build up to 1992 look like sea change to you at the time r, whilst in late 70’s it looked like Labour could even survive for much that build up?
This is 1992 saying hello! Yet again. 😆
Both Labour 79 and Tory’s 97 both had no majority, let along a whopping one from most previous election.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Yes, in both cases. Although they were very one sided deals that reflected the decisive military outcome. Neither Ukraine nor Russia look likely to impose such an overwhelming victory in this conflict so the deal, and there will be one, will necessarily be more balanced.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
I wish I was as certain about anything as you are about everything. What has Russia got that neither Hitler nor Galtieri had? What would Hitler have done if he had them? Clue: what does the V in V1 and V2 stand for?
The irony, of course, is that a strong showing by Mr Herdson may help the Tories.
Geniune question: is the Yorkshire Party anything other than the unofficial Yorkshire branch of the Tories that gone a bit native? Are their national policies much different?
I'd have thought they'd take two Tory votes for every one Labour vote tbh.
Well they’re clearly not the BNP in disguise!
I assume they’re anti-Brexit as that’s clearly a big issue for David. But other than that, I know little about them.
If I were Labour, I wouldn’t welcome wildcards like Herdson. Sure, he could get second making it a terrrrrible night for the Tories, but it’s much more important that Labour wins. Having a potential none of the above option like the Lib Dems were in North Shropshire, is not ideal.
I agree with Ben, if one sides vote is grumpy, wavering, and mood for a protest, this is port in storm with its name in neon lights.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
Stop selling them electronics that make military equipment, stop buying their exports that gives them money, and make their leadership and wealthy individuals feel like pariahs on the international stage.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
What element of that sounds Hollywood-y to you?
It means exactly what we're doing. It means sending NATO (and other) weaponry to Ukraine to use against the invaders. It means sanctions on Russia to cripple their Military Industrial Complex. It means not buying Russian exports to cut off their financing.
It means keeping this up until Russia lose the war and retreat back to their own borders.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
Stop selling them electronics that make military equipment, stop buying their exports that gives them money, and make their leadership and wealthy individuals feel like pariahs on the international stage.
We’re doing a pretty good job of that so far.
All four Rolls-Royce dealerships in Moscow are open for business today.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
On the face of it, Russia has a achieved a poor return on the amount of men and material which they've expended.
Yes, Russia may well wind up with the Donbas, Kherson and Azov coast, at the cost of an ongoing attritional stalemate, occupying wasteland with embittered locals, with no end to sanctions and an army mauled and unable to fight elsewhere.
Perhaps the biggest cost will be diplomatic, with 80% of the Ukraine as permanent enemies, armed by NATO and part of the EU.
And that Phyrric victory is their best possible outcome.
It seems to me as if we'd launched an invasion of Ireland, with a view to annexing the three border counties and installing a puppet government in Dublin, and then 8 weeks after the invasion started, after suffering thousands of casualties, we're still fighting in the border counties. Most would consider our invasion a failure.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
I wish I was as certain about anything as you are about everything. What has Russia got that neither Hitler nor Galtieri had? What would Hitler have done if he had them? Clue: what does the V in V1 and V2 stand for?
What makes you think Galtieri would have used nuclear weapons?
Hitler ended up with Germany occupied and partitioned, nobody is proposing that for Russia. Russia losing the war doesn't mean Russia getting occupied and partitioned, it means Russia pulling back to their own borders and that is not something worth them committing suicide over.
If Putin were to order a nuclear strike over Ukraine then the chances are someone close to him would think that they don't want their own family and world destroyed by a nuclear retaliation and put a bullet into him.
Nuclear weapons aren't as significant as you make out to this conflict. Not remotely.
I've lived through two sea changes in UK political life: 1979 and 1997.
I am certain we are now experiencing the third.
Really? Didn’t build up to 1992 look like sea change to you at the time r, whilst in late 70’s it looked like Labour could even survive for much that build up?
This is 1992 saying hello! Yet again. 😆
Both Labour 79 and Tory’s 97 both had no majority, let along a whopping one from most previous election.
The sea change was in 2008-09.
The example from 2010 is government had working majority from previous election, despite polls and seat projectors on their side, the government incumbency held up and the opposition failed to get majority on the night could only get existing PM out with a coalition.
Csnt say I'm a huge fan of regionalism outside of local level, if we had it everywhere it'd be chaos, but good luck David for a good showing.
Everything north of the M18 (excluding Hartlepool) does have a distinct cultural identity though. I mean, it's not Catalunya or Euskadi but it probably merits discrete political representation.
North of the M18, only?
Deedahs spluttering into their Yorkshire Tea and kicking their whippets in response to that
(Although, personally, I think anyone south of the M62 is a bit suspect )
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
Stop selling them electronics that make military equipment, stop buying their exports that gives them money, and make their leadership and wealthy individuals feel like pariahs on the international stage.
We’re doing a pretty good job of that so far.
All four Rolls-Royce dealerships in Moscow are open for business today.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
On the face of it, Russia has a achieved a poor return on the amount of men and material which they've expended.
Yes, Russia may well wind up with the Donbas, Kherson and Azov coast, at the cost of an ongoing attritional stalemate, occupying wasteland with embittered locals, with no end to sanctions and an army mauled and unable to fight elsewhere.
Perhaps the biggest cost will be diplomatic, with 80% of the Ukraine as permanent enemies, armed by NATO and part of the EU.
And that Phyrric victory is their best possible outcome.
It seems to me as if we'd launched an invasion of Ireland, with a view to annexing the three border counties and installing a puppet government in Dublin, and then 8 weeks after the invasion started, after suffering thousands of casualties, we're still fighting in the border counties. Most would consider our invasion a failure.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
Stop selling them electronics that make military equipment, stop buying their exports that gives them money, and make their leadership and wealthy individuals feel like pariahs on the international stage.
We’re doing a pretty good job of that so far.
All four Rolls-Royce dealerships in Moscow are open for business today.
Another example of German solidarity with Ukraine? (Should I boycott using my BMW?)
I've lived through two sea changes in UK political life: 1979 and 1997.
I am certain we are now experiencing the third.
Really? Didn’t build up to 1992 look like sea change to you at the time r, whilst in late 70’s it looked like Labour could even survive for much that build up?
This is 1992 saying hello! Yet again. 😆
Both Labour 79 and Tory’s 97 both had no majority, let along a whopping one from most previous election.
The sea change was in 2008-09.
The example from 2010 is government had working majority from previous election, despite polls and seat projectors on their side, the government incumbency held up and the opposition failed to get majority on the night could only get existing PM out with a coalition.
2010 was a change in government, but while I was happy to see Labour out of power I'm not sure it was a sea change, which is why we ended up with a Hung Parliament.
To hold up 1979 and 2010 as the only sea changes in our politics in that time period, just because they're the only times the parties in Downing Street changed is overly simplistic.
2016-19 is surely a far bigger sea change in our politics than 2010 was.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
What element of that sounds Hollywood-y to you?
It means exactly what we're doing. It means sending NATO (and other) weaponry to Ukraine to use against the invaders. It means sanctions on Russia to cripple their Military Industrial Complex. It means not buying Russian exports to cut off their financing.
It means keeping this up until Russia lose the war and retreat back to their own borders.
At the very least, the unexpectedly long duration of the conflict has switched the West to a Zero-Dependency on Russian oil policy (and Russia has accelerated that in what would seem to be a tactical move that has strategically backfired.)
That's an economic sanction that is not going away for a generation.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
I wish I was as certain about anything as you are about everything. What has Russia got that neither Hitler nor Galtieri had? What would Hitler have done if he had them? Clue: what does the V in V1 and V2 stand for?
What makes you think Galtieri would have used nuclear weapons?
Hitler ended up with Germany occupied and partitioned, nobody is proposing that for Russia. Russia losing the war doesn't mean Russia getting occupied and partitioned, it means Russia pulling back to their own borders and that is not something worth them committing suicide over.
If Putin were to order a nuclear strike over Ukraine then the chances are someone close to him would think that they don't want their own family and world destroyed by a nuclear retaliation and put a bullet into him.
Nuclear weapons aren't as significant as you make out to this conflict. Not remotely.
That is so spectacularly wrong it's like saying the Queen has no bearing on this game of chess because, look, we are 20 moves in and she hasn't moved. Or the presence of the ace of trumps in dummy has been irrelevant cos it hasn't been played yet.
I have no idea in detail what the protocol is for Russia or anyone else to launch a nuke is, but I am bloody certain it is very carefully designed from the ground up to accommodate the fact that things are going to be a tiny bit fraught, it's not a question of could you ask Ivan to get me a cup of tea from the samovar and press the big red button on the way. I would think that security round Putin would be intense and that for every person with a role to play you'd have a dozen to shoot that person if he didn't fulfill it
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
Stop selling them electronics that make military equipment, stop buying their exports that gives them money, and make their leadership and wealthy individuals feel like pariahs on the international stage.
We’re doing a pretty good job of that so far.
All four Rolls-Royce dealerships in Moscow are open for business today.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
What element of that sounds Hollywood-y to you?
It means exactly what we're doing. It means sending NATO (and other) weaponry to Ukraine to use against the invaders. It means sanctions on Russia to cripple their Military Industrial Complex. It means not buying Russian exports to cut off their financing.
It means keeping this up until Russia lose the war and retreat back to their own borders.
At the very least, the unexpectedly long duration of the conflict has switched the West to a Zero-Dependency on Russian oil policy (and Russia has accelerated that in what would seem to be a tactical move that has strategically backfired.)
That's an economic sanction that is not going away for a generation.
Given the move to Net Zero over the next generation, that may be a sanction that never goes away.
Its not just states involved in the sanctions now though, multinational companies too are wary of getting involved with Russia as a bad actor that could affect their own profitability and that's unlikely to be reversed any time soon. Even after the war ends, multinational companies are going to think twice before investing in Russia.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
Stop selling them electronics that make military equipment, stop buying their exports that gives them money, and make their leadership and wealthy individuals feel like pariahs on the international stage.
We’re doing a pretty good job of that so far.
All four Rolls-Royce dealerships in Moscow are open for business today.
Another example of German solidarity with Ukraine? (Should I boycott using my BMW?)
I have found myself strangely drawn to adverts for 1st gen RR Ghosts lately. If I can find a non-running one with straight bodywork I might...
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
I wish I was as certain about anything as you are about everything. What has Russia got that neither Hitler nor Galtieri had? What would Hitler have done if he had them? Clue: what does the V in V1 and V2 stand for?
What makes you think Galtieri would have used nuclear weapons?
Hitler ended up with Germany occupied and partitioned, nobody is proposing that for Russia. Russia losing the war doesn't mean Russia getting occupied and partitioned, it means Russia pulling back to their own borders and that is not something worth them committing suicide over.
If Putin were to order a nuclear strike over Ukraine then the chances are someone close to him would think that they don't want their own family and world destroyed by a nuclear retaliation and put a bullet into him.
Nuclear weapons aren't as significant as you make out to this conflict. Not remotely.
I would think that security round Putin would be intense and that for every person with a role to play you'd have a dozen to shoot that person if he didn't fulfill it
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
What element of that sounds Hollywood-y to you?
It means exactly what we're doing. It means sending NATO (and other) weaponry to Ukraine to use against the invaders. It means sanctions on Russia to cripple their Military Industrial Complex. It means not buying Russian exports to cut off their financing.
It means keeping this up until Russia lose the war and retreat back to their own borders.
At the very least, the unexpectedly long duration of the conflict has switched the West to a Zero-Dependency on Russian oil policy (and Russia has accelerated that in what would seem to be a tactical move that has strategically backfired.)
That's an economic sanction that is not going away for a generation.
Or rather, will take a generation to implement. Why do you suppose that Germany continues to consume Russian energy. Because not to do so would plunge Germany into a dramatic recession which their govt refuses to impose. Are they right? I'm sure @BR thinks not but they have decided to take the longer view and will not do so.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
I wish I was as certain about anything as you are about everything. What has Russia got that neither Hitler nor Galtieri had? What would Hitler have done if he had them? Clue: what does the V in V1 and V2 stand for?
What makes you think Galtieri would have used nuclear weapons?
Hitler ended up with Germany occupied and partitioned, nobody is proposing that for Russia. Russia losing the war doesn't mean Russia getting occupied and partitioned, it means Russia pulling back to their own borders and that is not something worth them committing suicide over.
If Putin were to order a nuclear strike over Ukraine then the chances are someone close to him would think that they don't want their own family and world destroyed by a nuclear retaliation and put a bullet into him.
Nuclear weapons aren't as significant as you make out to this conflict. Not remotely.
That is so spectacularly wrong it's like saying the Queen has no bearing on this game of chess because, look, we are 20 moves in and she hasn't moved. Or the presence of the ace of trumps in dummy has been irrelevant cos it hasn't been played yet.
I have no idea in detail what the protocol is for Russia or anyone else to launch a nuke is, but I am bloody certain it is very carefully designed from the ground up to accommodate the fact that things are going to be a tiny bit fraught, it's not a question of could you ask Ivan to get me a cup of tea from the samovar and press the big red button on the way. I would think that security round Putin would be intense and that for every person with a role to play you'd have a dozen to shoot that person if he didn't fulfill it
Absolutely the security round Putin is going to be as intense as the Praetorian Guards were around Roman Emperors.
There is a lesson from history there that you might want to think about ...
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
The irony, of course, is that a strong showing by Mr Herdson may help the Tories.
Geniune question: is the Yorkshire Party anything other than the unofficial Yorkshire branch of the Tories that gone a bit native? Are their national policies much different?
I'd have thought they'd take two Tory votes for every one Labour vote tbh.
Well they’re clearly not the BNP in disguise!
I assume they’re anti-Brexit as that’s clearly a big issue for David. But other than that, I know little about them.
If I were Labour, I wouldn’t welcome wildcards like Herdson. Sure, he could get second making it a terrrrrible night for the Tories, but it’s much more important that Labour wins. Having a potential none of the above option like the Lib Dems were in North Shropshire, is not ideal.
The local candidate in 2019 was fairly clearly pro-Brexit. I think the position then was that local candidates were able to take their own view to an extent. Pro-Brexit was presumed to play well in the constituency, I guess (probably correctly)
2016 they didn't have a policy - let local candidates/groups decide and campaign as they wished.
Edit: So, an element of LD-like local flexibility and perhaps an element of cakeism, but a reasonably sensible position overall. As I recall, it was some other things in the local candidate's literature and/or history that put me off.
I've lived through two sea changes in UK political life: 1979 and 1997.
I am certain we are now experiencing the third.
Really? Didn’t build up to 1992 look like sea change to you at the time r, whilst in late 70’s it looked like Labour could even survive for much that build up?
This is 1992 saying hello! Yet again. 😆
Both Labour 79 and Tory’s 97 both had no majority, let along a whopping one from most previous election.
The sea change was in 2008-09.
The example from 2010 is government had working majority from previous election, despite polls and seat projectors on their side, the government incumbency held up and the opposition failed to get majority on the night could only get existing PM out with a coalition.
2010 was a change in government, but while I was happy to see Labour out of power I'm not sure it was a sea change, which is why we ended up with a Hung Parliament.
To hold up 1979 and 2010 as the only sea changes in our politics in that time period, just because they're the only times the parties in Downing Street changed is overly simplistic.
2016-19 is surely a far bigger sea change in our politics than 2010 was.
I think that is absolutely true. 1979 was a sea change, and everyone who did not basically fall in with Keith Joseph's vision failed to win elections (will much change of colour around a market-forces core).
The events of 2016 led to the Government of 2019 which is a very different beast. I know how I'd characterise it so I won't, for fear of people disagreeing with the sea change premise on the grounds that they don't agree with my negative assessment of that change!
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
What does "putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war" mean. Sounds pretty Hollywood-y to me.
What element of that sounds Hollywood-y to you?
It means exactly what we're doing. It means sending NATO (and other) weaponry to Ukraine to use against the invaders. It means sanctions on Russia to cripple their Military Industrial Complex. It means not buying Russian exports to cut off their financing.
It means keeping this up until Russia lose the war and retreat back to their own borders.
At the very least, the unexpectedly long duration of the conflict has switched the West to a Zero-Dependency on Russian oil policy (and Russia has accelerated that in what would seem to be a tactical move that has strategically backfired.)
That's an economic sanction that is not going away for a generation.
Or rather, will take a generation to implement. Why do you suppose that Germany continues to consume Russian energy. Because not to do so would plunge Germany into a dramatic recession which their govt refuses to impose. Are they right? I'm sure @BR thinks not but they have decided to take the longer view and will not do so.
Agreed. It is attritional - but is a strategic change, rather than tactical sanctions in the usual sense.
I've lived through two sea changes in UK political life: 1979 and 1997.
I am certain we are now experiencing the third.
Really? Didn’t build up to 1992 look like sea change to you at the time r, whilst in late 70’s it looked like Labour could even survive for much that build up?
This is 1992 saying hello! Yet again. 😆
Both Labour 79 and Tory’s 97 both had no majority, let along a whopping one from most previous election.
The sea change was in 2008-09.
The example from 2010 is government had working majority from previous election, despite polls and seat projectors on their side, the government incumbency held up and the opposition failed to get majority on the night could only get existing PM out with a coalition.
2010 was a change in government, but while I was happy to see Labour out of power I'm not sure it was a sea change, which is why we ended up with a Hung Parliament.
To hold up 1979 and 2010 as the only sea changes in our politics in that time period, just because they're the only times the parties in Downing Street changed is overly simplistic.
2016-19 is surely a far bigger sea change in our politics than 2010 was.
Yeah I agree. People who only voted Labour their entire lives now vote Tory and proud of it. Labour rampers need some concrete evidence of this changing, not just usual mid term blues, before believing they can remove all that Tory majority.
And what evidence are they pointing too? Nothing. They don’t have that evidence.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
You would have thought so. It depends upon what Zelensky thinks is acceptable Ukraine territory to cede. If none then the war will continue for some time; if as you state then the deal will be sooner.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
I agree that this is a likely outcome. I could see Zelensky settling for that. What would Putin do, though?
I can't see him going for an Eternal Special Operation. Maaaaaybe as a permanent "War is Peace" thing to keep the population in War Mode in Russia. A truly Orwellian solution.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
Success = Outcome - Expectations
Ukraine is winning because Russia was expected to crush Ukraine and occupy the country, blitzkrieging the capital from the North.
Instead Ukraine have survived the onslaught and Russia have already undergone a humiliating retreat from Kyiv.
Now Russia is trying to make very limited gains in the East. They've already lost once, we will see what happens next.
Russia now has much reduced military equipment with which to implement its much reduced aims. Meanwhile, NATO kit streams in from the west. Kit aimed at making Russia's presence in Ukraine intolerably expensive. There is no diminution in this supply, coming to the Ukrainians gratis. Indeed, Germany now seems to have been turned towards the cause.
Would love to see Russia's planning assessments of how the special military operation war would develop. I imagine they have would make embarrassing reading. It is a truism that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. But this is How To Fuck Up 1.0 - a case study for the ages.
Imagine that briefing just before the troops cross the border.
"President Yeltsin, our operation Z will result in:
- heavy losses for our mechanised infantry forces and our forces' reputation downgraded to junk status. Losses in our prestige front-line forces to the point where they are no longer operational units. 20,000 dead, the same again badly injured or traumatised - the loss of many of our top generals in targeted attacks, as they go to the front to find out what the hell is going wrong - a humiliating retreat from Kyiv, abandonment of installing a Moscow-friendly regime there - investigation of war crimes wherever we go. Endless footage of rape, murder, wanton destruction shared on every social medium. One soldier sharing online his rape of a child as the level of our achievements. - a failure to gain air supremacy. Helicopters unable to operate in the face of cheap, lightweight weapons flooding the country. Our jets little better able to operate against a new generation of MANPADS. - our Black Sea flagship on the bottom of the Black Sea following a missile strike - a Ukraine united as never before, its ability to win friends and material support internationally unlike anything since Live Aid. Every village across the world has someone flying the Ukrainian flag in support - wide scale and ever-tightening sanctions, meaning within weeks our tank production will have ground to a halt - the medium term collapse of our hydrocarbons markets, heading rapidly towards short term collapse - an invigorated NATO, enhanced by membership of Sweden and Finland. A newly militarised Germany, who no longer take our calls about buying weapons. The Belarus regime hangs by a slender thread, its people having prevented our troops using their country as a supply route, its army having refused to fight alongside ours. Georgia applying for EU membership, other republics within Mother Russia wondering when might be a good time to pursue their own independent agendas - a world where "Russian" is a by-word for somebody you want to keep at very, very great distance.
On the plus side, they are still wary of our nukes."
I've lived through two sea changes in UK political life: 1979 and 1997.
I am certain we are now experiencing the third.
Really? Didn’t build up to 1992 look like sea change to you at the time r, whilst in late 70’s it looked like Labour could even survive for much that build up?
This is 1992 saying hello! Yet again. 😆
Both Labour 79 and Tory’s 97 both had no majority, let along a whopping one from most previous election.
The sea change was in 2008-09.
The example from 2010 is government had working majority from previous election, despite polls and seat projectors on their side, the government incumbency held up and the opposition failed to get majority on the night could only get existing PM out with a coalition.
2010 was a change in government, but while I was happy to see Labour out of power I'm not sure it was a sea change, which is why we ended up with a Hung Parliament.
To hold up 1979 and 2010 as the only sea changes in our politics in that time period, just because they're the only times the parties in Downing Street changed is overly simplistic.
2016-19 is surely a far bigger sea change in our politics than 2010 was.
Sea changes (h/t Shakespeare) can be argued for almost any moment. But if we are going through one now, it's a long one. To identify a moment of sea change in UK politics it seems to me that Brexit night 2016 was the most recent, and there is no doubt we are still living out the consequences.
Two of the things to work out are: That Brexit v Remain split the centre ground of politics in a new way, and both sides are still in denial that both Remain and Brexit were and are centrist policies. (A vote of 16m v 17m cannot be about extremes in UK politics).
Second thing to work out, always obvious but ignored, is that where a western country stands in relation to NATO matters in the long run much more than the EU. Ask the Ukrainians, Swedes and Finns.
In wider politics there is a more recent sea change: the day Russia invaded Ukraine.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
I agree that this is a likely outcome. I could see Zelensky settling for that. What would Putin do, though?
I can't see him going for an Eternal Special Operation. Maaaaaybe as a permanent "War is Peace" thing to keep the population in War Mode in Russia. A truly Orwellian solution.
At present the talk is of an "off ramp" for Putin. If there is still a square foot of Ukraine soil occupied by Russia then Zelensky will need an off ramp also.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
I wish I was as certain about anything as you are about everything. What has Russia got that neither Hitler nor Galtieri had? What would Hitler have done if he had them? Clue: what does the V in V1 and V2 stand for?
What makes you think Galtieri would have used nuclear weapons?
Hitler ended up with Germany occupied and partitioned, nobody is proposing that for Russia. Russia losing the war doesn't mean Russia getting occupied and partitioned, it means Russia pulling back to their own borders and that is not something worth them committing suicide over.
If Putin were to order a nuclear strike over Ukraine then the chances are someone close to him would think that they don't want their own family and world destroyed by a nuclear retaliation and put a bullet into him.
Nuclear weapons aren't as significant as you make out to this conflict. Not remotely.
Russia wants to reduce the conversation to only two options. Either they get what they want, or there is nuclear war.
Obviously it's in their interests for us to believe that, and acquiesce, but it's not credible. They aren't going to start a nuclear war over the Donbas.
I've lived through two sea changes in UK political life: 1979 and 1997.
I am certain we are now experiencing the third.
Really? Didn’t build up to 1992 look like sea change to you at the time r, whilst in late 70’s it looked like Labour could even survive for much that build up?
This is 1992 saying hello! Yet again. 😆
Both Labour 79 and Tory’s 97 both had no majority, let along a whopping one from most previous election.
The sea change was in 2008-09.
The example from 2010 is government had working majority from previous election, despite polls and seat projectors on their side, the government incumbency held up and the opposition failed to get majority on the night could only get existing PM out with a coalition.
2010 was a change in government, but while I was happy to see Labour out of power I'm not sure it was a sea change, which is why we ended up with a Hung Parliament.
To hold up 1979 and 2010 as the only sea changes in our politics in that time period, just because they're the only times the parties in Downing Street changed is overly simplistic.
2016-19 is surely a far bigger sea change in our politics than 2010 was.
Whether 2016-19 was a sea change or a trip down a cul de sac is yet to be seen. Permanent shifts in the political centre of gravity, as we saw in 1945 and 1979, have to see the government deliver something sustainable that matches what was promised. What exactly did 2016-19 promise? To leave the EU, yes, but to what end? A more protected economy, which was promised to the left behind voters who swung it for Leave, or the Singapore on Thames advocated by Hannan et al? And are either of those models really sustainable, even assuming the government were able to make a choice? I would argue no, the first for economic reasons, the second for political ones. So where does that leave us? Outside the EU (and so poorer and weaker) but with no sustainable changes to our economic model to compensate. No wonder the government is floundering, and casting about for ever more absurd and revolting populist nonsense to cover up its lack of coherence and ideas. 2016-19 may yet mark a sea change, but right now I would bet against it.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
You would have thought so. It depends upon what Zelensky thinks is acceptable Ukraine territory to cede. If none then the war will continue for some time; if as you state then the deal will be sooner.
We should keep offering support so that he is willing to say none then, don't you think? Why should Ukraine cede any territory?
Russia is increasingly financially and militarily f***ed. The longer the war drags out, the more aid the West can supply to Ukraine, the more the balance of power goes against Russia.
NATO has a better financial and military position than Russia does. And how long will Putin's benefactors in Russia be prepared to be pariahs on the global stage for a futile war?
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
You would have thought so. It depends upon what Zelensky thinks is acceptable Ukraine territory to cede. If none then the war will continue for some time; if as you state then the deal will be sooner.
We should keep offering support so that he is willing to say none then, don't you think? Why should Ukraine cede any territory?
Russia is increasingly financially and militarily f***ed. The longer the war drags out, the more aid the West can supply to Ukraine, the more the balance of power goes against Russia.
NATO has a better financial and military position than Russia does. And how long will Putin's benefactors in Russia be prepared to be pariahs on the global stage for a futile war?
Putin's ultimate problem is this is "Putin's War". If he goes, the new regime can disown it.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
You would have thought so. It depends upon what Zelensky thinks is acceptable Ukraine territory to cede. If none then the war will continue for some time; if as you state then the deal will be sooner.
And how long will Putin's benefactors in Russia be prepared to be pariahs on the global stage for a futile war?
No idea. We stayed in Iraq for 18 years. That was pretty futile.
Why do people persist with the myth that at some point a deal will be done with Russia?
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War? What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
Did Argentina have nuclear weapons? Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
Many on here believe that Tom Cruise will swoop in to defeat the Red Peril in aerial combat and we can all walk off into the sunset. They really do believe it is some kind of Hollywood film, as @Dura noted so appositely yesterday.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
Its not a Hollywood film, its a war, and that means sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine who are doing the fighting, and putting pressure on Russia so they lose the war.
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
I wish I was as certain about anything as you are about everything. What has Russia got that neither Hitler nor Galtieri had? What would Hitler have done if he had them? Clue: what does the V in V1 and V2 stand for?
What makes you think Galtieri would have used nuclear weapons?
Hitler ended up with Germany occupied and partitioned, nobody is proposing that for Russia. Russia losing the war doesn't mean Russia getting occupied and partitioned, it means Russia pulling back to their own borders and that is not something worth them committing suicide over.
If Putin were to order a nuclear strike over Ukraine then the chances are someone close to him would think that they don't want their own family and world destroyed by a nuclear retaliation and put a bullet into him.
Nuclear weapons aren't as significant as you make out to this conflict. Not remotely.
That is so spectacularly wrong it's like saying the Queen has no bearing on this game of chess because, look, we are 20 moves in and she hasn't moved. Or the presence of the ace of trumps in dummy has been irrelevant cos it hasn't been played yet.
I have no idea in detail what the protocol is for Russia or anyone else to launch a nuke is, but I am bloody certain it is very carefully designed from the ground up to accommodate the fact that things are going to be a tiny bit fraught, it's not a question of could you ask Ivan to get me a cup of tea from the samovar and press the big red button on the way. I would think that security round Putin would be intense and that for every person with a role to play you'd have a dozen to shoot that person if he didn't fulfill it
Absolutely the security round Putin is going to be as intense as the Praetorian Guards were around Roman Emperors.
There is a lesson from history there that you might want to think about ...
That was then, this is now. what Russian leader, and what 20-21st century leader of anywhere, has been taken out by the palace guard? In africa it tends to be the regular army
Why this should be is an interesting Q I hadn't thought of before and will do, but whatever the reason it is, literally, ancient history.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
You would have thought so. It depends upon what Zelensky thinks is acceptable Ukraine territory to cede. If none then the war will continue for some time; if as you state then the deal will be sooner.
At some point, even the Ukrainians are going to get exhausted. They will not "cede" territory de jure, but de facto it will happen. Just as Russia cannot now take over the whole of Ukraine, as much as we'd wish it otherwise the reality is also that the Ukrainians cannot win it all back either. It seems to me that what's being fought over now is where the ceasefire line will be on land and on the Black Sea.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
You would have thought so. It depends upon what Zelensky thinks is acceptable Ukraine territory to cede. If none then the war will continue for some time; if as you state then the deal will be sooner.
And how long will Putin's benefactors in Russia be prepared to be pariahs on the global stage for a futile war?
No idea. We stayed in Iraq for 18 years. That was pretty futile.
How many US industrialists were prevented from travelling, had their assets seized and had their business restricted due to the invasion of Iraq?
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
You would have thought so. It depends upon what Zelensky thinks is acceptable Ukraine territory to cede. If none then the war will continue for some time; if as you state then the deal will be sooner.
And how long will Putin's benefactors in Russia be prepared to be pariahs on the global stage for a futile war?
No idea. We stayed in Iraq for 18 years. That was pretty futile.
Quite a few big differences though.
We had Iraq occupied, we weren't struggling to merely get across the border fighting village by village. We took the capital swiftly. The war didn't make us international pariahs and didn't lead to sanctions that crippled our economy.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
A North Korea/South Korea style ceasefire is surely the most likely outcome now. At some stage they'll just stop fighting and start staring at each other across a highly combustible, heavily militarised, disputed border. Free Ukraine will become more westernised and more prosperous; Russia and occupied Ukraine will not.
You would have thought so. It depends upon what Zelensky thinks is acceptable Ukraine territory to cede. If none then the war will continue for some time; if as you state then the deal will be sooner.
We should keep offering support so that he is willing to say none then, don't you think? Why should Ukraine cede any territory?
Russia is increasingly financially and militarily f***ed. The longer the war drags out, the more aid the West can supply to Ukraine, the more the balance of power goes against Russia.
NATO has a better financial and military position than Russia does. And how long will Putin's benefactors in Russia be prepared to be pariahs on the global stage for a futile war?
Putin's ultimate problem is this is "Putin's War". If he goes, the new regime can disown it.
Not necessarily.
With the Greater Russia Nationalists all fired up, a new government that did that might be creating a Stab In The Back Myth.
"If only the Great Leader Putin (toasts by moving the glass over a bowl of water) was here, we would be strong, instead of humiliated. Instead we have these pro-Western scum and are on our knees. Again."
Comments
As an outsider, it feels that as soon as something falls into the American political crevice you immediately get 40% thinking it's the worst thing ever and 40% thinking it's the best thing ever.
Taking your logic that a loss is a loss and the rest is just PR and though you're not suggesting it it seems like Ukraine really should just surrender entirely, on the basis that they cannot win ergo they will lose.
I also dont quite get the point about PR. PR doesnt seem like nothing either, Russian PR and Ukrainian PR contributes to willingness to keep up the fight and gain stuff from domestic support and allies. No one takes PR at face value, but both use it and are you saying that morale never matters?
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Exactly the same reaction under Trump, would have had the majority of Republicans in favour and the majority of Democrats opposed.
The vessel involved in that escapade is now at the bottom of the Black Sea.
Oh, and the island reportedly took a couple of hits yesterday.
https://en.hromadske.ua/posts/strike-on-occupiers-at-snake-island-ukraines-aid-hq-in-germany-last-nights-highlights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3htGl51SqAE
It's fairly obvious that the original Russian plan was a quick coup de main followed by occupation of much of Ukraine.
The Russians have been forced to abandon any hope of taking Kyiv and have trying to take the East and the coast, instead.
The Russians are still taking ground. But it is far closer to a fair fight than anyone predicted.
As to popular support in Russia. I keep coming back to the Ceaușescu video. If Putin's support collapses, it will be sudden. But as a result of a hollowing out of belief in the individuals making up the mass - and that will be over time.
EDIT:
@Dura_Ace is right to the extent that the outcome of the war is still in the balance. I don't think there's any certain outcome, even though I am fairly optimistic that Ukraine will succeed in pushing back the invasion with the western aid it's receiving.
The future of Russia (other than remaining grim) is even more unknowable.
I'm not sure that even a reinforced Ukraine can do much there, other than hold the line.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
The scope of the damage is unknown yet. If the bridge remains closed, the access to part of Odesa Oblast will be only through Moldova.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1518915670792101888
It’s not our fault if you’re too lazy to seek out a range of these accounts concerning the Russian invasion to understand what’s happening better.
Ukraine is winning because Russia was expected to crush Ukraine and occupy the country, blitzkrieging the capital from the North.
Instead Ukraine have survived the onslaught and Russia have already undergone a humiliating retreat from Kyiv.
Now Russia is trying to make very limited gains in the East. They've already lost once, we will see what happens next.
Though Baldy Ben considered then declined to send AS90s and put some LR Defenders their way instead. LOL. Let's hope the Ukrainians have some squaddies with the necessary three elbows in one arm needed for the weekly replacement of the fuel pressure regulator.
I can't think of a single election winner ever who didn't have an element of populism in their appeal, just who they phrased as the elites they were against and who they phrased as the ordinary people whose votes they sought changed.
What deal was done with Argentina after the Falklands War?
What deal was done with the Axis powers after WWII?
At some point one party loses a war, that is not really a deal.
I expect Labour to win as they will throw absolutely everything at it, with battalions of lefties from Leeds and elsewhere recruited to get the vote out. They do need to ensure they have the right candidate, though.
Perhaps the biggest cost will be diplomatic, with 80% of the Ukraine as permanent enemies, armed by NATO and part of the EU.
And that Phyrric victory is their best possible outcome.
Everyone was dazzled by the Potemkin show, but then made assumptions about organisational competence which is where the Russians seem to have really fallen short.
They're in the ninth week of the war and still hitting fixed targets that should have been on a pre-war target list.
But this is not a paper exercise when we show that because of this Ukraine is winning trebles all round. This is a war and there is no pre-determined ending and on those terms that equation is meaningless as Russia continues to fight and so does Ukraine with losses incurred on both sides.
There is a focus on Kyiv - fine. But it is as pointless as focusing on the Battle of Arnhem. War is fluid and unknowable. Not an inevitable series of events which lead to a given conclusion.
With its military logistics infrastructure to be deployed in a further push westwards.
"Johnson’s dedication to the fantasy of himself is so complete, it convinced others."
"Johnson’s disappointed lovers now number millions. That’s quite the political failure, and they will punish him next week."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/04/26/following-boriss-local-campaign-trail-tory-infatuation-has/
Wow.
Russia has already undergone a retreat from Kyiv. That is a fact. They may gain Mariupol and the coast at great expense but that is at best a Pyhrric victory for them under the circumstances and is not what they started the war for.
This is 1992 saying hello! Yet again. 😆
Both Labour 79 and Tory’s 97 both had no majority, let along a whopping one from most previous election.
Did WW2 Germany have nuclear weapons?
That's why a lot of people think things will end up coming to some kind of accommodation. That might be wrong, but the nuclear factor is a definite constraint on NATO action that makes "deal" a plausible belief at least. (If this was against a purely conventionally-armed opponent then I'd agree with you.)
I don't see these results being anywhere near that poor for the Tories.
Expect Boris vindicated! Let's move on!
From Friday week.
Nuclear weapons didn't stop Russia from losing the invasion of Kyiv and retreating from that.
Russia have already had to retreat once. Nukes didn't stop that.
Nuclear weapons? Well didn't we send Bruce Willis on a daredevil mission to defeat those or something in one of the Die Hards?
It does not require singing Kumbayah or Apprentice style deal making.
Ukraine is in neither of those positions at the moment.
We’re doing a pretty good job of that so far.
It means exactly what we're doing. It means sending NATO (and other) weaponry to Ukraine to use against the invaders. It means sanctions on Russia to cripple their Military Industrial Complex. It means not buying Russian exports to cut off their financing.
It means keeping this up until Russia lose the war and retreat back to their own borders.
Hitler ended up with Germany occupied and partitioned, nobody is proposing that for Russia. Russia losing the war doesn't mean Russia getting occupied and partitioned, it means Russia pulling back to their own borders and that is not something worth them committing suicide over.
If Putin were to order a nuclear strike over Ukraine then the chances are someone close to him would think that they don't want their own family and world destroyed by a nuclear retaliation and put a bullet into him.
Nuclear weapons aren't as significant as you make out to this conflict. Not remotely.
Later, Odesa RegHead reported bridge was destroyed; previous strike only damaged it
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519221408424943616
Deedahs spluttering into their Yorkshire Tea and kicking their whippets in response to that
(Although, personally, I think anyone south of the M62 is a bit suspect
To hold up 1979 and 2010 as the only sea changes in our politics in that time period, just because they're the only times the parties in Downing Street changed is overly simplistic.
2016-19 is surely a far bigger sea change in our politics than 2010 was.
That's an economic sanction that is not going away for a generation.
I have no idea in detail what the protocol is for Russia or anyone else to launch a nuke is, but I am bloody certain it is very carefully designed from the ground up to accommodate the fact that things are going to be a tiny bit fraught, it's not a question of could you ask Ivan to get me a cup of tea from the samovar and press the big red button on the way. I would think that security round Putin would be intense and that for every person with a role to play you'd have a dozen to shoot that person if he didn't fulfill it
Its not just states involved in the sanctions now though, multinational companies too are wary of getting involved with Russia as a bad actor that could affect their own profitability and that's unlikely to be reversed any time soon. Even after the war ends, multinational companies are going to think twice before investing in Russia.
There is a lesson from history there that you might want to think about ...
2016 they didn't have a policy - let local candidates/groups decide and campaign as they wished.
2019 the official policy was respect the vote and EFTA
https://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Yorkshire-Party-2019-General-Election-Manifesto.pdf
Edit: So, an element of LD-like local flexibility and perhaps an element of cakeism, but a reasonably sensible position overall. As I recall, it was some other things in the local candidate's literature and/or history that put me off.
The events of 2016 led to the Government of 2019 which is a very different beast. I know how I'd characterise it so I won't, for fear of people disagreeing with the sea change premise on the grounds that they don't agree with my negative assessment of that change!
And what evidence are they pointing too? Nothing. They don’t have that evidence.
I can't see him going for an Eternal Special Operation. Maaaaaybe as a permanent "War is Peace" thing to keep the population in War Mode in Russia. A truly Orwellian solution.
Would love to see Russia's planning assessments of how the
special military operationwar would develop. I imagine they have would make embarrassing reading. It is a truism that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. But this is How To Fuck Up 1.0 - a case study for the ages.Imagine that briefing just before the troops cross the border.
"President Yeltsin, our operation Z will result in:
- heavy losses for our mechanised infantry forces and our forces' reputation downgraded to junk status. Losses in our prestige front-line forces to the point where they are no longer operational units. 20,000 dead, the same again badly injured or traumatised
- the loss of many of our top generals in targeted attacks, as they go to the front to find out what the hell is going wrong
- a humiliating retreat from Kyiv, abandonment of installing a Moscow-friendly regime there
- investigation of war crimes wherever we go. Endless footage of rape, murder, wanton destruction shared on every social medium. One soldier sharing online his rape of a child as the level of our achievements.
- a failure to gain air supremacy. Helicopters unable to operate in the face of cheap, lightweight weapons flooding the country. Our jets little better able to operate against a new generation of MANPADS.
- our Black Sea flagship on the bottom of the Black Sea following a missile strike
- a Ukraine united as never before, its ability to win friends and material support internationally unlike anything since Live Aid. Every village across the world has someone flying the Ukrainian flag in support
- wide scale and ever-tightening sanctions, meaning within weeks our tank production will have ground to a halt
- the medium term collapse of our hydrocarbons markets, heading rapidly towards short term collapse
- an invigorated NATO, enhanced by membership of Sweden and Finland. A newly militarised Germany, who no longer take our calls about buying weapons. The Belarus regime hangs by a slender thread, its people having prevented our troops using their country as a supply route, its army having refused to fight alongside ours. Georgia applying for EU membership, other republics within Mother Russia wondering when might be a good time to pursue their own independent agendas
- a world where "Russian" is a by-word for somebody you want to keep at very, very great distance.
On the plus side, they are still wary of our nukes."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY4tD2Hbg_A
Two of the things to work out are: That Brexit v Remain split the centre ground of politics in a new way, and both sides are still in denial that both Remain and Brexit were and are centrist policies. (A vote of 16m v 17m cannot be about extremes in UK politics).
Second thing to work out, always obvious but ignored, is that where a western country stands in relation to NATO matters in the long run much more than the EU. Ask the Ukrainians, Swedes and Finns.
In wider politics there is a more recent sea change: the day Russia invaded Ukraine.
Obviously it's in their interests for us to believe that, and acquiesce, but it's not credible. They aren't going to start a nuclear war over the Donbas.
Permanent shifts in the political centre of gravity, as we saw in 1945 and 1979, have to see the government deliver something sustainable that matches what was promised. What exactly did 2016-19 promise?
To leave the EU, yes, but to what end? A more protected economy, which was promised to the left behind voters who swung it for Leave, or the Singapore on Thames advocated by Hannan et al? And are either of those models really sustainable, even assuming the government were able to make a choice? I would argue no, the first for economic reasons, the second for political ones.
So where does that leave us? Outside the EU (and so poorer and weaker) but with no sustainable changes to our economic model to compensate. No wonder the government is floundering, and casting about for ever more absurd and revolting populist nonsense to cover up its lack of coherence and ideas.
2016-19 may yet mark a sea change, but right now I would bet against it.
Russia is increasingly financially and militarily f***ed. The longer the war drags out, the more aid the West can supply to Ukraine, the more the balance of power goes against Russia.
NATO has a better financial and military position than Russia does. And how long will Putin's benefactors in Russia be prepared to be pariahs on the global stage for a futile war?
Why this should be is an interesting Q I hadn't thought of before and will do, but whatever the reason it is, literally, ancient history.
We had Iraq occupied, we weren't struggling to merely get across the border fighting village by village.
We took the capital swiftly.
The war didn't make us international pariahs and didn't lead to sanctions that crippled our economy.
With the Greater Russia Nationalists all fired up, a new government that did that might be creating a Stab In The Back Myth.
"If only the Great Leader Putin (toasts by moving the glass over a bowl of water) was here, we would be strong, instead of humiliated. Instead we have these pro-Western scum and are on our knees. Again."