Shockingly the person who oversaw the atrophy of German defence capability is now EU president. Shambles doesn't cover it.
In that case, quite right that she was demoted!
She may be useless, corrupt, and promoted German arms sales to Saudi Arabia (since rightly stopped again), but is there any evidence the German military were in any better shape before she was defence minister?
If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.
It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.
Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.
And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.
Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
Except it's not unambiguous. What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ? We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.
'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.
Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
Good luck in your campaign!
Best instance of someone replying to the wrong post, ever.
Yes, I thought for a second that David Herdson was off to retake Crimea.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Rubbish is a pretty big issue in many areas. It certainly is around my way.
During the pandemic the Council introduced a booking scheme at the local tip, which was perfectly sensible. It's keeping it though, which isn't. The scheme suits the Council (cost-saving) and the site managers (profits and convenience) but it is bad for the local residence. It's awkward and inconvenient. It discourages responsible disposal of waste and encourages fly-tipping.
It is very much a Council issue and the type of thing that can easily impact results in local elections.
Indeed, but the SNP's administration in Glasgow is of such a quality that they are rumoured to be seeking the advice of the Scottish government on ferry contracts. Emptying bins is way too hard.
If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.
It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.
Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.
And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.
Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
Except it's not unambiguous. What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ? We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.
'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.
Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
Yes. Best to leave the grandstanding to Vladimir Putin imo. He's full of it.
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
I certainly wouldn't do it at my work.
It does sound completely inappropriate. People should be able to go to work without having to put up with unwanted comments about how sexually attractive they are, this shouldn't really need saying should it?
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
Unfortunately, the battle was lost long ago. The rule is now, if a member of a protected group says they are offended, the offender can be cancelled.
If a female worker called a male colleague the same would we even have heard of this? Attractiveness is nothing to be ashamed of . Indeed I’d be happy if so many people wanted to sleep with me ! It would be interesting to get the perspective of female members in here .
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Gaining territory isn't much good if the cost is completely disproportionate to the gain.
One could after all, have looked at a map of the Eastern front in August 1943, and drawn the wrong conclusion, based upon who had made the greatest territorial gain.
At least you concede the awkward fact that Russia has gained quite a bit of territory.
I don't know what the future of the war holds, and sometimes there are indeed massive reversals.
However, on current progress, my guess would be Russia gradually takes most of the south and east over the next six months.
Putin now has 90 per cent of Luhansk, 60 per cent of Donetsk and he has a land bridge to Crimea. So, in terms of his stated aims, he is nearly there.
Of course, his stated aims may not be his true aims. He may want more.
My hart desperately whats to push back against what you are saying, I'm probably not allow in that respect, but My head can see that is what is happening.
Russia holds a lot of Ukrainian territory and every day gets, at high cost a bit more. yes Russia made a mistake in also invading in the north, where the forests and swamps played in to Ukrainian strengths, taking a lot of losses in the prosses, but then made a tactical disition to pull out of that area to reinforces its south and east areas. we can celebrate this a a Ukrainian victory if we want, but the Russians pulled out in reasonably good order, getting most of there men and equipment out.
we can look at the Russian economy and say look its shrinking by 10% or whatever, but that's nothing compared to how badly the Ukrainian economy is shrinking, something like 6 million Ukrainian refuges, and an additional 6.5 million internally displaced, is not sustainable.
We don't know exactly how much equipment each side has lost, Russia has probably lost more, but then it started with a lot more, if one side starts with 4 times the equipment and then looses, twice as much as your opponent, you will, propotiantly be batter positioned than you opponent, and this may well be where we are now.
We can talk about the sinking of the Moskva, or the effeteness of the AA ManPads, as much as we like, but Russia still dominates the sea and air. and however slowly is advancing on land.
I'm not a general, and don't have all the information, perhaps Ukraine is preparing a counterattack with all the western equipment that is being supplied and now troops that are being trained as we speak. I do hope this is the case, but I see little evidence of it.
I live in Angus which is a bit of a swing council with the SNP at or just under a majority with the Tories the main opposition. The lack of activity has been startling. We have had an SNP leaflet (one) and, well, that's about it. A serious lack of energy and effort by all concerned which is likely to have an effect on turnout. Not sure that we are going to be able to tell much, if anything from this.
There seems to be slightly more activity in Edinburgh. From those who have been out on the doorstep the Tories may be in for a hiding for reasons that have very little to do with the poor Councillors.
How many people who have actually been out on doorsteps have you been getting your feedback from?
Two, both in Edinburgh, no one locally. So its a pretty small sample I admit
I've chatted with people from Alba and the Communists so far.
Neither had a plan for the death trap cycle lane introduced next to the new tram track, so my vote is still up for grabs.
If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.
It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.
Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.
And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.
Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
Except it's not unambiguous. What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ? We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.
'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.
Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
Good luck in your campaign!
Best instance of someone replying to the wrong post, ever.
Yes, I thought for a second that David Herdson was off to retake Crimea.
That dark money has to be spent somewhere. Entetaining that a couple of grifters who don't feel the need to put their own appeal to voters to the test call themseves The Majority. At least they've improved their proof reading game.
If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.
It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
OK, here is one thing: ""Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."
Here is another: "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
Both on the face of it universal advice about human interactions and relationships. The first is 3 or 4 thousand years old (Proverbs where it comes from probably a shade under 3,000, but with possibly much much older Egyptian sources) and still current and good advice, as "pride goes before a fall". The second looks to me equally universal, non-time-specific good advice, but apparently is past its sell by date in about a century. Why?
I wouldn't say it's past its sell by date - although it should be viewed in the context that the world has changed substantially in the last century, and what worked in a geopolitical sense then be less applicable now. Plus, our relationship with Russia today is not directly translatable to the USA's with the rest of the world a hundred years ago.
My point was more that it's advice, not universally accepted dogma - it seems unfair to criticise Truss specifically for not following it. By all means, continue to criticise her for results if she's not getting them.
I was working backwards from She is making a complete arse of herself to What principle is she infringing, not running a rule over her to see whether she conformed.
Say I live in a village which has a known dangerous and violent bully. If I arbitrarily walk up to the bully and say "You are a dickless wanker and your mother smells of wee" and get beaten to a pulp, my fellow villagers are quite likely to think *both* that he shouldn't have done that and the village needs a strategy to deal with him, *and* that I am a complete twat.
Oh I see; because your guiding principle is "we must treat Putin like a nuclear warhead that might go off at any moment, because, well, he is". Fair enough. I disagree with that, hence also with your assessment of Truss, and hence also that the Roosevelt Big Stick (or, more precisely, Speaking Softly) is particularly applicable to this situation.
You sound as if you are wishing there was a "white feather" button next to the Like. I think your sarcasm is misplaced; Putin is, I think we can agree, borderline insane, immoral to the extent orf tacitly approving the rape of children, prepared to promote the aggrandisement of Russia at all costs, 70 years old and as likely as not, terminally ill, with little remaining life to lose. He has the world's second biggest nuclear arsenal, of which probably at least 10% is in working order, and his biggest weapon is brand new and therefore not suffering from the lack of maintenance which is the main problem with his conventional materiel. Nobody knows what the launch protocols are for his weapons but it seems certain that when you are designing those protocols you take it as almost inevitable that there will be a faction against launching when push comes to shove, and you design in safeguards against interference with the launch.
Against that background what specifically is it that makes it ridiculous to treat Putin "like a nuclear warhead that might go off at any moment"? His fundamental decency and humanity? See above under child rape. The fundamental decency and humanity of his generals? See above under child rape, and launch protocols. So, what's the answer?
Against that background, you think I am saying Let the bully have his way, for fear of consequences. That ignores the "big stick" element. Actually, I am an active member of the Let's sort out the Bully committee. The two things I least want from other members of that committee are 1. Your mother smells of wee talk which has no effect other than to incite the bully to carry on bullying weakling non committee members and 2. Hey bully, here are our secret plans to deal with you, what do you think of that? talk.
That dark money has to be spent somewhere. Entetaining that a couple of grifters who don't feel the need to put their own appeal to voters to the test call themseves The Majority. At least they've improved their proof reading game.
That's quite clever as it highlights the misspelling but then of course Sturgeon name becomes obvious
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
It is offensive but I'd file it under misogyny rather than sexual harassment. It demeans the woman. It says that any success she has had is due to Tory lust rather than her work.
So yes, whoever said it is a dinosaur but I'd also blame the Party and House authorities for not issuing clear guidelines that spell out *why* certain things that used to be commonplace, and even that might have been intended as a compliment, are no longer acceptable.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Gaining territory isn't much good if the cost is completely disproportionate to the gain.
One could after all, have looked at a map of the Eastern front in August 1943, and drawn the wrong conclusion, based upon who had made the greatest territorial gain.
At least you concede the awkward fact that Russia has gained quite a bit of territory.
I don't know what the future of the war holds, and sometimes there are indeed massive reversals.
However, on current progress, my guess would be Russia gradually takes most of the south and east over the next six months.
Putin now has 90 per cent of Luhansk, 60 per cent of Donetsk and he has a land bridge to Crimea. So, in terms of his stated aims, he is nearly there.
Of course, his stated aims may not be his true aims. He may want more.
My hart desperately whats to push back against what you are saying, I'm probably not allow in that respect, but My head can see that is what is happening.
Russia holds a lot of Ukrainian territory and every day gets, at high cost a bit more. yes Russia made a mistake in also invading in the north, where the forests and swamps played in to Ukrainian strengths, taking a lot of losses in the prosses, but then made a tactical disition to pull out of that area to reinforces its south and east areas. we can celebrate this a a Ukrainian victory if we want, but the Russians pulled out in reasonably good order, getting most of there men and equipment out.
we can look at the Russian economy and say look its shrinking by 10% or whatever, but that's nothing compared to how badly the Ukrainian economy is shrinking, something like 6 million Ukrainian refuges, and an additional 6.5 million internally displaced, is not sustainable.
We don't know exactly how much equipment each side has lost, Russia has probably lost more, but then it started with a lot more, if one side starts with 4 times the equipment and then looses, twice as much as your opponent, you will, propotiantly be batter positioned than you opponent, and this may well be where we are now.
We can talk about the sinking of the Moskva, or the effeteness of the AA ManPads, as much as we like, but Russia still dominates the sea and air. and however slowly is advancing on land.
I'm not a general, and don't have all the information, perhaps Ukraine is preparing a counterattack with all the western equipment that is being supplied and now troops that are being trained as we speak. I do hope this is the case, but I see little evidence of it.
We are in danger of going down a road of sterile prurience here - where no-one dares to say a word about any thing for fear of the woke police. It increasingly seems that the minute anyone takes offence at anything it's game over for the perp! A massive collective sense of humour breakdown. And of course it tends to follow party lines making it all even more insidious.
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
Unfortunately, the battle was lost long ago. The rule is now, if a member of a protected group says they are offended, the offender can be cancelled.
If a female worker called a male colleague the same would we even have heard of this? Attractiveness is nothing to be ashamed of . Indeed I’d be happy if so many people wanted to sleep with me ! It would be interesting to get the perspective of female members in here .
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
Unfortunately, the battle was lost long ago. The rule is now, if a member of a protected group says they are offended, the offender can be cancelled.
If a female worker called a male colleague the same would we even have heard of this? Attractiveness is nothing to be ashamed of . Indeed I’d be happy if so many people wanted to sleep with me ! It would be interesting to get the perspective of female members in here .
Sure, if someone made a *welcome* comment to you that "lots of people want to sleep with you", it would be OK (although the reality of someone making that kind of remark in a professional situation can sometimes be a bit more uncomfortable than the fantasy, often humiliating whether male or female or something else).
If you're not sure whether saying to someone "all the men/women/whatever want to sleep with you" is going to be welcomed by the other person, then it's actually very easy to not say it.
Wallis is one of the owners of a company called Fields Holdings Limited, the parent company of Action Direct (UK) Limited, a former claims management company of which Wallis was a director in 2011[10] when the Ministry of Justice banned it from taking on any further employment claims work, following an investigation into the company's conduct.[11][12]
In July 2010, a Freedom of Information request (2417) was made to Bridgend County Borough Council (BCBC) asking how many complaints or referrals to Trading Standards had been made about a Field House associated company Rapid Data Recovery Ltd, which returned the response that between 1 January 2009 and mid-2010, 37 complaints had been received, a figure which included associated companies. In January 2020, after being elected to Parliament, Wallis threatened to take legal action against BCBC over the matter under the Freedom of Information Act.[13][14]
...
An investigation by BuzzFeed in January 2020 found that Wallis had been a co-owner of a 'sugar daddy' dating website, "which offered students financial relationships with wealthy 'sponsors'". Although Wallis initially denied links to the company, Buzzfeed found that he had been a director and shareholder of the site's parent company.[17] The Labour MP Jess Phillips called for Wallis to be removed.[18][19] Since the 2019 election, Wallis has quit as director of at least seven companies.[20]
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
It is offensive but I'd file it under misogyny rather than sexual harassment. It demeans the woman. It says that any success she has had is due to Tory lust rather than her work.
So yes, whoever said it is a dinosaur but I'd also blame the Party and House authorities for not issuing clear guidelines that spell out *why* certain things that used to be commonplace, and even that might have been intended as a compliment, are no longer acceptable.
Tory ?? - this is a shadow cabinet minister not a tory
That dark money has to be spent somewhere. Entetaining that a couple of grifters who don't feel the need to put their own appeal to voters to the test call themseves The Majority. At least they've improved their proof reading game.
That's quite clever as it highlights the misspelling but then of course Sturgeon name becomes obvious
So clever that they hastily changed it a day later?
I must apolgise to The Majority, apparently one of the gruesome twosome actually ran for Holyrood last year under Galloway's All For Unity banner. How many of their grand total of 23,299 votes he was responsible for garnering I cannot say.
As a father to two girls, I'd rather they grow up into a world where they can go to work without people making unwanted discussions who does and does not want to sleep with them.
'Banter' can be for pubs etc where if you're a douche nobody has to hang out with you, not the workplace.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Gaining territory isn't much good if the cost is completely disproportionate to the gain.
One could after all, have looked at a map of the Eastern front in August 1943, and drawn the wrong conclusion, based upon who had made the greatest territorial gain.
At least you concede the awkward fact that Russia has gained quite a bit of territory.
I don't know what the future of the war holds, and sometimes there are indeed massive reversals.
However, on current progress, my guess would be Russia gradually takes most of the south and east over the next six months.
Putin now has 90 per cent of Luhansk, 60 per cent of Donetsk and he has a land bridge to Crimea. So, in terms of his stated aims, he is nearly there.
Of course, his stated aims may not be his true aims. He may want more.
My hart desperately whats to push back against what you are saying, I'm probably not allow in that respect, but My head can see that is what is happening.
Russia holds a lot of Ukrainian territory and every day gets, at high cost a bit more. yes Russia made a mistake in also invading in the north, where the forests and swamps played in to Ukrainian strengths, taking a lot of losses in the prosses, but then made a tactical disition to pull out of that area to reinforces its south and east areas. we can celebrate this a a Ukrainian victory if we want, but the Russians pulled out in reasonably good order, getting most of there men and equipment out.
we can look at the Russian economy and say look its shrinking by 10% or whatever, but that's nothing compared to how badly the Ukrainian economy is shrinking, something like 6 million Ukrainian refuges, and an additional 6.5 million internally displaced, is not sustainable.
We don't know exactly how much equipment each side has lost, Russia has probably lost more, but then it started with a lot more, if one side starts with 4 times the equipment and then looses, twice as much as your opponent, you will, propotiantly be batter positioned than you opponent, and this may well be where we are now.
We can talk about the sinking of the Moskva, or the effeteness of the AA ManPads, as much as we like, but Russia still dominates the sea and air. and however slowly is advancing on land.
I'm not a general, and don't have all the information, perhaps Ukraine is preparing a counterattack with all the western equipment that is being supplied and now troops that are being trained as we speak. I do hope this is the case, but I see little evidence of it.
A picture is a thousand words....
That stops a week ago, the last week hasn't been great as far as coloured splodges on a map go.
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
The issue is that what has been perceived as banter (often by men) has been perceived as harassment by many, many women.
So the "banter" has been removed from civilised discourse.
I would never make such remarks at work.
Tbf, by many men too. A key giveaway is the term "banter". A good rule of thumb is that anyone using the word is usually out of order.
Yes, when men say "what's your problem, it's only a bit of banter?" you can rest assured that that such men are probably sexist and/or racist, depending on the 'bit of banter' in question.
We are in danger of going down a road of sterile prurience here - where no-one dares to say a word about any thing for fear of the woke police. It increasingly seems that the minute anyone takes offence at anything it's game over for the perp! A massive collective sense of humour breakdown. And of course it tends to follow party lines making it all even more insidious.
The lewd comments mentioned and the bullying would be regarded in the companies I have worked in as unprofessional.
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
It is offensive but I'd file it under misogyny rather than sexual harassment. It demeans the woman. It says that any success she has had is due to Tory lust rather than her work.
So yes, whoever said it is a dinosaur but I'd also blame the Party and House authorities for not issuing clear guidelines that spell out *why* certain things that used to be commonplace, and even that might have been intended as a compliment, are no longer acceptable.
Tory ?? - this is a shadow cabinet minister not a tory
Yes, Tory. The complained words were that Tories wanted to have their way with her.
If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.
It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.
Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.
And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.
Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
Except it's not unambiguous. What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ? We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.
'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.
Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
Good luck in your campaign!
Best instance of someone replying to the wrong post, ever.
Yes, I thought for a second that David Herdson was off to retake Crimea.
I mean, Wakefield is a challenge but ...
I think that sort of campaigning should be left to @HYUFD !
We are in danger of going down a road of sterile prurience here - where no-one dares to say a word about any thing for fear of the woke police. It increasingly seems that the minute anyone takes offence at anything it's game over for the perp! A massive collective sense of humour breakdown. And of course it tends to follow party lines making it all even more insidious.
The lewd comments mentioned and the bullying would be regarded in the companies I have worked in as unprofessional.
No doubt but I hope we don't move into a world where a sense of proportion is applied, as well as rules of evidence, intent, history, etc before the poor fool with the big gob is hurled onto the streets never to work again.
Truss needs to rein it in. She’s risking Russia wiping out London and risking the most dire consequence for the British people - King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Best they send Wills and family on a nice long sabbatical in Australia until it’s calmed down just in case……
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?
They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.
In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k. A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.
If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.
There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.
I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
Oh really? So all that land North of Kyiv that Russia were claiming they were occupying with their convoy heading to Kyiv - are they still occupying that?
Putinists like you might be wanting to think that Ukraine is losing the war but reality is something different.
So if someone is not on message they are automatically a Putinist ?
I doubt any of us really knows who is winning the war.
I certainly don't. I would like Ukraine to win but that is about it.
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
It is offensive but I'd file it under misogyny rather than sexual harassment. It demeans the woman. It says that any success she has had is due to Tory lust rather than her work.
So yes, whoever said it is a dinosaur but I'd also blame the Party and House authorities for not issuing clear guidelines that spell out *why* certain things that used to be commonplace, and even that might have been intended as a compliment, are no longer acceptable.
Tory ?? - this is a shadow cabinet minister not a tory
Yes, Tory. The complained words were that Tories wanted to have their way with her.
Maybe read this from BBC Wales and note it is a shadow cabinet minister who has been complained about
Wallis is one of the owners of a company called Fields Holdings Limited, the parent company of Action Direct (UK) Limited, a former claims management company of which Wallis was a director in 2011[10] when the Ministry of Justice banned it from taking on any further employment claims work, following an investigation into the company's conduct.[11][12]
In July 2010, a Freedom of Information request (2417) was made to Bridgend County Borough Council (BCBC) asking how many complaints or referrals to Trading Standards had been made about a Field House associated company Rapid Data Recovery Ltd, which returned the response that between 1 January 2009 and mid-2010, 37 complaints had been received, a figure which included associated companies. In January 2020, after being elected to Parliament, Wallis threatened to take legal action against BCBC over the matter under the Freedom of Information Act.[13][14]
...
An investigation by BuzzFeed in January 2020 found that Wallis had been a co-owner of a 'sugar daddy' dating website, "which offered students financial relationships with wealthy 'sponsors'". Although Wallis initially denied links to the company, Buzzfeed found that he had been a director and shareholder of the site's parent company.[17] The Labour MP Jess Phillips called for Wallis to be removed.[18][19] Since the 2019 election, Wallis has quit as director of at least seven companies.[20]
Is due diligence by political parties just not a thing anymore?
We are in danger of going down a road of sterile prurience here - where no-one dares to say a word about any thing for fear of the woke police. It increasingly seems that the minute anyone takes offence at anything it's game over for the perp! A massive collective sense of humour breakdown. And of course it tends to follow party lines making it all even more insidious.
The lewd comments mentioned and the bullying would be regarded in the companies I have worked in as unprofessional.
No doubt but I hope we don't move into a world where a sense of proportion is applied, as well as rules of evidence, intent, history, etc before the poor fool with the big gob is hurled onto the streets never to work again.
Yes, let's take a moment to recognise the real victims in this scenario. Oafish men just can never catch a break.
We are in danger of going down a road of sterile prurience here - where no-one dares to say a word about any thing for fear of the woke police. It increasingly seems that the minute anyone takes offence at anything it's game over for the perp! A massive collective sense of humour breakdown. And of course it tends to follow party lines making it all even more insidious.
The lewd comments mentioned and the bullying would be regarded in the companies I have worked in as unprofessional.
No doubt but I hope we don't move into a world where a sense of proportion is applied, as well as rules of evidence, intent, history, etc before the poor fool with the big gob is hurled onto the streets never to work again.
Yes, let's take a moment to recognise the real victims in this scenario. Oafish men just can never catch a break.
Like I said - and out they come. Get over yourself.
That's very, very old news. Russian design pack as much ammunition and weapons as they can into the smallest vehicle they can manage. There is very little effort made to protect the ammunition (or fuel) or the effects of a fire/explosion from the crew.
So penetrate a Russian AFV, and you will almost certainly hit something fun. Which means a fire, then an explosion. Or just and explosion.
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
It is offensive but I'd file it under misogyny rather than sexual harassment. It demeans the woman. It says that any success she has had is due to Tory lust rather than her work.
So yes, whoever said it is a dinosaur but I'd also blame the Party and House authorities for not issuing clear guidelines that spell out *why* certain things that used to be commonplace, and even that might have been intended as a compliment, are no longer acceptable.
Tory ?? - this is a shadow cabinet minister not a tory
Yes, Tory. The complained words were that Tories wanted to have their way with her.
Maybe read this from BBC Wales and note it is a shadow cabinet minister who has been complained about
Yes, I know that, but my point has gone over your head. I was explaining why (imo) it was offensive, even if intended as a compliment. ETA it is (again imo) in the same class as, though in milder form, the Basic Instinct charge.
The measure of who's winning the War in Ukraine is surely not territory, but time?
Territory does matter IMV, not just for the unfortunate people who happen to live in the contested areas. It's what's blocking any peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine on my understanding will only accept the restitution of all pre-2014 Ukrainian lands with the possible exception of Crimea. Putin requires at least some additional territory to what Russia occupied at the start of this campaign, which he can present as a victory.
The war will carry on until the territory issue is unblocked.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?
They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.
In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k. A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.
If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.
There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.
I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
Oh really? So all that land North of Kyiv that Russia were claiming they were occupying with their convoy heading to Kyiv - are they still occupying that?
Putinists like you might be wanting to think that Ukraine is losing the war but reality is something different.
So if someone is not on message they are automatically a Putinist ?
I doubt any of us really knows who is winning the war.
I certainly don't. I would like Ukraine to win but that is about it.
Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though.
He's either a Putinist or a conspiracy theorist who has fallen for Putinists stuff.
That's very, very old news. Russian design pack as much ammunition and weapons as they can into the smallest vehicle they can manage. There is very little effort made to protect the ammunition (or fuel) or the effects of a fire/explosion from the crew.
So penetrate a Russian AFV, and you will almost certainly hit something fun. Which means a fire, then an explosion. Or just and explosion.
But they have plenty of conscripts and plenty of AFVs so they don’t care. Even though I am the one writing this and I know it is true, I still find the values mismatch astonishing.
As a father to two girls, I'd rather they grow up into a world where they can go to work without people making unwanted discussions who does and does not want to sleep with them.
'Banter' can be for pubs etc where if you're a douche nobody has to hang out with you, not the workplace.
Exactly. And in a workplace there is generally a power imbalance as well that means people feel less able to protest against the 'banter' of colleagues.
I think certain types of men think women are flattered by their unrequited 'sleepability' comments, rather than creeped out by it. It's a reflection on that person's wish that more women viewed them in the same way.
Just be professional and treat everyone with respect at work. It's not difficult.
That's very, very old news. Russian design pack as much ammunition and weapons as they can into the smallest vehicle they can manage. There is very little effort made to protect the ammunition (or fuel) or the effects of a fire/explosion from the crew.
So penetrate a Russian AFV, and you will almost certainly hit something fun. Which means a fire, then an explosion. Or just and explosion.
Yep, that’s always been the Russian tank weakness - hence the modern Western anti-tank weapons that are designed to hit the turret from above, as that’s the weakest point on the vehicle and most likely to blow up the armoury.
As a father to two girls, I'd rather they grow up into a world where they can go to work without people making unwanted discussions who does and does not want to sleep with them.
'Banter' can be for pubs etc where if you're a douche nobody has to hang out with you, not the workplace.
Exactly. And in a workplace there is generally a power imbalance as well that means people feel less able to protest against the 'banter' of colleagues.
I think certain types of men think women are flattered by their unrequited 'sleepability' comments, rather than creeped out by it. It's a reflection on that person's wish that more women viewed them in the same way.
Just be professional and treat everyone with respect at work. It's not difficult.
The power imbalance is an important detail here. This wasn’t banter between peers, this was the boss making comments to a junior member of staff.
That's very, very old news. Russian design pack as much ammunition and weapons as they can into the smallest vehicle they can manage. There is very little effort made to protect the ammunition (or fuel) or the effects of a fire/explosion from the crew.
So penetrate a Russian AFV, and you will almost certainly hit something fun. Which means a fire, then an explosion. Or just and explosion.
But they have plenty of conscripts and plenty of AFVs so they don’t care. Even though I am the one writing this and I know it is true, I still find the values mismatch astonishing.
AFV crews are actually rather valuable - takes a lot of training.
And the growing evidence is that the Russia is digging deep into the stockpile of AFVs
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?
They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.
In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k. A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.
If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.
There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.
I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
Oh really? So all that land North of Kyiv that Russia were claiming they were occupying with their convoy heading to Kyiv - are they still occupying that?
Putinists like you might be wanting to think that Ukraine is losing the war but reality is something different.
So if someone is not on message they are automatically a Putinist ?
I doubt any of us really knows who is winning the war.
I certainly don't. I would like Ukraine to win but that is about it.
Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though.
He's either a Putinist or a conspiracy theorist who has fallen for Putinists stuff.
How forceful you are, Bart. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. But overexaggerated is not a thing.
President Biden, whose administration has grown increasingly bold in its support for Ukraine, is scheduled to update the American public on the state of the war on Thursday, as Western nations funnel heavy weapons to Ukraine and fears grow that the conflict could widen in unpredictable ways.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?
They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.
In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k. A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.
If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.
There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.
I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
Oh really? So all that land North of Kyiv that Russia were claiming they were occupying with their convoy heading to Kyiv - are they still occupying that?
Putinists like you might be wanting to think that Ukraine is losing the war but reality is something different.
So if someone is not on message they are automatically a Putinist ?
I doubt any of us really knows who is winning the war.
I certainly don't. I would like Ukraine to win but that is about it.
I guess there are genuine Putinists and Putin apologists. Corbyn, for example, is probably not the former, but certainly the latter, which makes him a sad thick tw*t rather than a murderous c*nt. It is important to make the distinction.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?
They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.
In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k. A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.
If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.
There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.
I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
Oh really? So all that land North of Kyiv that Russia were claiming they were occupying with their convoy heading to Kyiv - are they still occupying that?
Putinists like you might be wanting to think that Ukraine is losing the war but reality is something different.
So if someone is not on message they are automatically a Putinist ?
I doubt any of us really knows who is winning the war.
I certainly don't. I would like Ukraine to win but that is about it.
Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though.
He's either a Putinist or a conspiracy theorist who has fallen for Putinists stuff.
How forceful you are, Bart. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. But overexaggerated is not a thing.
That's rather misogynistic, the ability to keep calm and carry on in the face of Putin's empty threats about nukes has nothing to do with men or women, or manhood.
Overexaggerated is a thing, it means exaggerated to an excessive degree and your talking about NATO countries being nuked as if its already happened certainly falls under that.
President Biden, whose administration has grown increasingly bold in its support for Ukraine, is scheduled to update the American public on the state of the war on Thursday, as Western nations funnel heavy weapons to Ukraine and fears grow that the conflict could widen in unpredictable ways.
NY Times blog
Anyone know what the polling in the US says about the popularity of supporting Ukraine and how deep it should go? Biden isn’t a completely cynical politician but he’s still a politician with a popularity problem and some impending midterms.
This has been well known for years. The gunner actually sits on top of the 22 rounds in the autoloader carousel. Nice job if you can get it.
In Iraq I flew a squad of RM out to an T-72 that had been hit by a DU round from a US M1. We were supposed to get the radios out of it or some similar pointless sneaky-beaky exercise. The DU round had gone in one side of the turret, vapourised the top half of the gunner and then out of the other side. The loggies were supposed to have hosed the wreckage out but the lazy sods hadn't done anything and the Iraqi gunner's legs were still there in the seated position. We said words to the effect of 'Fuck This', jumped back in our Lynx and left.
I am expecting Tory losses in London, with Wandsworth and Barnet going Labour. The LDs and Greens and Independents will also pick up seats from the Tories in the South, especially in Remain areas and areas where over development remains a concern.
Labour I think will rebuild strongly in their heartlands in the North and Wales and the SNP will hold on in Scotland with little change in most councils there.
I do though think the Conservatives will do surprisingly well in the Midlands however, with Dudley and Walsall and Nuneaton for instance staying Conservative even as the Conservatives lose control of traditional blue bastions in the home counties like Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham and West Oxfordshire
I live in Angus which is a bit of a swing council with the SNP at or just under a majority with the Tories the main opposition. The lack of activity has been startling. We have had an SNP leaflet (one) and, well, that's about it. A serious lack of energy and effort by all concerned which is likely to have an effect on turnout. Not sure that we are going to be able to tell much, if anything from this.
There seems to be slightly more activity in Edinburgh. From those who have been out on the doorstep the Tories may be in for a hiding for reasons that have very little to do with the poor Councillors.
No decent options for me unfortunately , no real independence candidates. Just SNP and the London parties. I may have to vote London Labour as the worst of a bad lot. PS: Wife has already decided she will not vote for any of the scumbags.
We are in danger of going down a road of sterile prurience here - where no-one dares to say a word about any thing for fear of the woke police. It increasingly seems that the minute anyone takes offence at anything it's game over for the perp! A massive collective sense of humour breakdown. And of course it tends to follow party lines making it all even more insidious.
The lewd comments mentioned and the bullying would be regarded in the companies I have worked in as unprofessional.
I wouldn't want to over-police what people say. And I recognise that in politics, the boundary between work-life and not-work-life is a lot blurrier than it is for most of us. But yet again, I find myself marvelling at the sheer unprofessionalism of so many involved in politics. The top three headlines on the telegraph website are 'MP looking at porn while at work' 'MP suspended for bullying' and 'MP may be prosecuted for fleeing scene of car crash'. That's just in one week. There ate roughly as many employees in my workplace as MPs in the HoC, and I'm pretty sure there hasn't been one incident like this in the five years I've been there. I mean, these things do happen. MPs are human. But we should surely expect them to happen rather less frequently.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?
They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.
In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k. A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.
If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.
There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.
I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
Oh really? So all that land North of Kyiv that Russia were claiming they were occupying with their convoy heading to Kyiv - are they still occupying that?
Putinists like you might be wanting to think that Ukraine is losing the war but reality is something different.
So if someone is not on message they are automatically a Putinist ?
I doubt any of us really knows who is winning the war.
I certainly don't. I would like Ukraine to win but that is about it.
Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though.
He's either a Putinist or a conspiracy theorist who has fallen for Putinists stuff.
How forceful you are, Bart. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. But overexaggerated is not a thing.
That's rather misogynistic, the ability to keep calm and carry on in the face of Putin's empty threats about nukes has nothing to do with men or women, or manhood.
Overexaggerated is a thing, it means exaggerated to an excessive degree and your talking about NATO countries being nuked as if its already happened certainly falls under that.
Not seen the Rocky Horror Picture Show, then.
Exaggerate means attach excessive importance to, so overexaggerate means attach excessive excessive importance to.
I have never advocated any reduction in the aid we are giving to Ukraine, even if that means an enhanced risk of nuclear war. What I want, is squawky Liz to stop squawking about it
What is the evidence that Putin's threats are empty? Here's what I said a bit ago
"Putin is, I think we can agree, borderline insane, immoral to the extent orf tacitly approving the rape of children, prepared to promote the aggrandisement of Russia at all costs, 70 years old and as likely as not, terminally ill, with little remaining life to lose. He has the world's second biggest nuclear arsenal, of which probably at least 10% is in working order, and his biggest weapon is brand new and therefore not suffering from the lack of maintenance which is the main problem with his conventional materiel. Nobody knows what the launch protocols are for his weapons but it seems certain that when you are designing those protocols you take it as almost inevitable that there will be a faction against launching when push comes to shove, and you design in safeguards against interference with the launch."
We are in danger of going down a road of sterile prurience here - where no-one dares to say a word about any thing for fear of the woke police. It increasingly seems that the minute anyone takes offence at anything it's game over for the perp! A massive collective sense of humour breakdown. And of course it tends to follow party lines making it all even more insidious.
The lewd comments mentioned and the bullying would be regarded in the companies I have worked in as unprofessional.
And probably enough to put the perpetrator on a disciplinary I would guess/hope?
If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.
It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.
Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.
And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.
Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
Except it's not unambiguous. What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ? We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.
'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.
Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
I haven't been arguing for or against a particular policy, though I have my own views. I just think cabinet ministers conducting a debate which we've barely started, and certainly haven't concluded with our allies, by way of public speeches, isn't particularly responsible. And when they're transparently doing it as a pitch for the party leadership, it's irresponsible.
So if worker says to other worker . Everyone here thinks you’re incredibly attractive and sexy should the person view that as offensive . Or take it as a compliment , attractiveness helps you get on. This is a fact backed up by research.
We’re in danger of turning office spaces into sterile places where even light hearted banter is now viewed as some heinous crime .
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
Unfortunately, the battle was lost long ago. The rule is now, if a member of a protected group says they are offended, the offender can be cancelled.
If a female worker called a male colleague the same would we even have heard of this? Attractiveness is nothing to be ashamed of . Indeed I’d be happy if so many people wanted to sleep with me ! It would be interesting to get the perspective of female members in here .
Context, as per usual, is important. I gather here that the bloke just came out with this to other people as he introduced the woman in question to them. You'd have to be there, I suppose, but it doesn't sound great to me, and the woman herself was put out not flattered.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?
They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.
In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k. A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.
If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.
There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.
I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
Oh really? So all that land North of Kyiv that Russia were claiming they were occupying with their convoy heading to Kyiv - are they still occupying that?
Putinists like you might be wanting to think that Ukraine is losing the war but reality is something different.
So if someone is not on message they are automatically a Putinist ?
I doubt any of us really knows who is winning the war.
I certainly don't. I would like Ukraine to win but that is about it.
Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though.
He's either a Putinist or a conspiracy theorist who has fallen for Putinists stuff.
How forceful you are, Bart. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. But overexaggerated is not a thing.
That's rather misogynistic, the ability to keep calm and carry on in the face of Putin's empty threats about nukes has nothing to do with men or women, or manhood.
Overexaggerated is a thing, it means exaggerated to an excessive degree and your talking about NATO countries being nuked as if its already happened certainly falls under that.
Not seen the Rocky Horror Picture Show, then.
Exaggerate means attach excessive importance to, so overexaggerate means attach excessive excessive importance to.
I have never advocated any reduction in the aid we are giving to Ukraine, even if that means an enhanced risk of nuclear war. What I want, is squawky Liz to stop squawking about it
What is the evidence that Putin's threats are empty? Here's what I said a bit ago
"Putin is, I think we can agree, borderline insane, immoral to the extent orf tacitly approving the rape of children, prepared to promote the aggrandisement of Russia at all costs, 70 years old and as likely as not, terminally ill, with little remaining life to lose. He has the world's second biggest nuclear arsenal, of which probably at least 10% is in working order, and his biggest weapon is brand new and therefore not suffering from the lack of maintenance which is the main problem with his conventional materiel. Nobody knows what the launch protocols are for his weapons but it seems certain that when you are designing those protocols you take it as almost inevitable that there will be a faction against launching when push comes to shove, and you design in safeguards against interference with the launch."
Where precisely are you getting "empty" from?
Apologies I missed that reference, oops! I love Rocky Horror too. 🤦♂️
Yes it is exaggerated excessively.
Liz absolutely should not stop "squawking" about it because its literally her job to be doing so. That is what the Foreign Secretary is there for, she is helping lead and put pressure on Germany and other recalcitrant nations to provide maximum support to Ukraine to help ensure that Russia loses this war and Ukraine wins it.
But you seem reluctant to actually accept the UK's goals. You seem excessively afraid of the idea that Putin will turn nuclear if he loses.
So let me ask you a simple question: Do you want to see Russia lose this war, to the point that they have no choice but to pull out of all of Ukraine, including all of occupied Donbas and Crimea? Or would you prefer to see Putin win the war or be able to keep some of the land he has seized?
Does anyone know why Toby Young turned into such a dishonest antivaxxer? Is it solely because the PCR Claims4 You --> HART Group and descendants were the only ones who believed his crap through 2020 so he loyally promoted their mouthpieces Will Jones and Claire Craig, who were fervent antivaxxers?
Every bloody day he seems to be promoting another daft antivaxxer conspiracy. Now it's that boosters in Iceland caused their excess deaths over winter (having had zero effect in first and second doses). Whilst their exit wave of covid, which crested in perfect synchronicity with the deaths (well, about three weeks in advance of the deaths, which is what you'd expect) picking off the unvaxxed was sheer coincidence.
Seriously, when someone is fervently against any and all action to prevent viral spread, including vaccination, you get to the point where you've got to define them as pro-virus rather than anti-anything-else.
The problem is that despite having been so consistently and horribly wrong throughout, from "it only hurries a handful of really old and frail people into the grave a few months early" through "it's just a mild flu for anyone under eighty" through "casedemic" and "false positives" and "there's no way it can have a secondthird fourth wave," and "vaccines don't stop you getting ill, just testing positive," and "the true IFR is under 0.1%," and the rest of it... people still seem to read and believe things he says!
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?
They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.
In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k. A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.
If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.
There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.
I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
Oh really? So all that land North of Kyiv that Russia were claiming they were occupying with their convoy heading to Kyiv - are they still occupying that?
Putinists like you might be wanting to think that Ukraine is losing the war but reality is something different.
So if someone is not on message they are automatically a Putinist ?
I doubt any of us really knows who is winning the war.
I certainly don't. I would like Ukraine to win but that is about it.
I guess there are genuine Putinists and Putin apologists. Corbyn, for example, is probably not the former, but certainly the latter, which makes him a sad thick tw*t rather than a murderous c*nt. It is important to make the distinction.
Sounds like you're warming to him slightly. Nigel.
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
Unfortunately, the battle was lost long ago. The rule is now, if a member of a protected group says they are offended, the offender can be cancelled.
If a female worker called a male colleague the same would we even have heard of this? Attractiveness is nothing to be ashamed of . Indeed I’d be happy if so many people wanted to sleep with me ! It would be interesting to get the perspective of female members in here .
Context, as per usual, is important. I gather here that the bloke just came out with this to other people as he introduced the woman in question to them. You'd have to be there, I suppose, but it doesn't sound great to me, and the woman herself was put out not flattered.
Okay that’s fair enough . I wouldn’t make that sort of statement in front of other people .
This has been well known for years. The gunner actually sits on top of the 22 rounds in the autoloader carousel. Nice job if you can get it.
In Iraq I flew a squad of RM out to an T-72 that had been hit by a DU round from a US M1. We were supposed to get the radios out of it or some similar pointless sneaky-beaky exercise. The DU round had gone in one side of the turret, vapourised the top half of the gunner and then out of the other side. The loggies were supposed to have hosed the wreckage out but the lazy sods hadn't done anything and the Iraqi gunner's legs were still there in the seated position. We said words to the effect of 'Fuck This', jumped back in our Lynx and left.
Sort of anecdote that keeps me coming to PB
Tangentially I watched the documentary about making Apocalypse Now the other night. It's as good as the film itself. Filming the "You either fight or you surf" scene was a nightmare because Marcos's helicopters were there in their spare time from fighting an actual war, so you'd rehearse one lot of pilots one day but then have to start again next morning cos the first lot were 30 miles away flying ground attack IRL.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.
It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.
Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.
And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.
Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
Except it's not unambiguous. What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ? We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.
'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.
Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
I haven't been arguing for or against a particular policy, though I have my own views. I just think cabinet ministers conducting a debate which we've barely started, and certainly haven't concluded with our allies, by way of public speeches, isn't particularly responsible. And when they're transparently doing it as a pitch for the party leadership, it's irresponsible.
Of course its responsible. It is British policy to provide maximum support to Ukraine and to see Russia lose this war. What Truss said 100% fits with British policy.
We don't need to "conclude" negotiations with our allies before the Foreign Secretary of the UK can say what the UK's objectives are - it is entirely appropriate and diplomatic for the UK's top diplomat to be diplomatically saying in a keynote speech the UK's objectives. That is how Foreign Secretary's have conducted diplomacy for a long time before Truss too.
If you object to the UK's objectives as you don't want Russia to lose the war, that's a different matter.
Rubbish is a pretty big issue in many areas. It certainly is around my way.
During the pandemic the Council introduced a booking scheme at the local tip, which was perfectly sensible. It's keeping it though, which isn't. The scheme suits the Council (cost-saving) and the site managers (profits and convenience) but it is bad for the local residence. It's awkward and inconvenient. It discourages responsible disposal of waste and encourages fly-tipping.
It is very much a Council issue and the type of thing that can easily impact results in local elections.
The problems local councils have with rubbish are one of the things leaving the EU should have allowed us to fix. The UK isn't short of worked out quarries to fill with rubbish and grass over, the only reason it's an expensive nightmare was that the EU decided landfill was bad and should be taxed. If we made it so that the cost of tipping rubbish into landfill was the cost of the hole in the ground + the lorry to take it there, the cost of rubbish disposal (particularly from council tips) would fall to almost nothing, tips could then be free for all (inc building trade waste) and flytipping would cease to be a problem (instead of costing councils a fortune).
As a bonus, if we burnt the rubbish before stuffing it in the holes in the ground, we'd get some cheap electricity too.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.
It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.
Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.
And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.
Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
Except it's not unambiguous. What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ? We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.
'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.
Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
I haven't been arguing for or against a particular policy, though I have my own views. I just think cabinet ministers conducting a debate which we've barely started, and certainly haven't concluded with our allies, by way of public speeches, isn't particularly responsible. And when they're transparently doing it as a pitch for the party leadership, it's irresponsible.
Of course its responsible. It is British policy to provide maximum support to Ukraine and to see Russia lose this war. What Truss said 100% fits with British policy.
We don't need to "conclude" negotiations with our allies before the Foreign Secretary of the UK can say what the UK's objectives are - it is entirely appropriate and diplomatic for the UK's top diplomat to be diplomatically saying in a keynote speech the UK's objectives. That is how Foreign Secretary's have conducted diplomacy for a long time before Truss too.
If you object to the UK's objectives as you don't want Russia to lose the war, that's a different matter.
So if worker says to other worker . Everyone here thinks you’re incredibly attractive and sexy should the person view that as offensive . Or take it as a compliment , attractiveness helps you get on. This is a fact backed up by research.
We’re in danger of turning office spaces into sterile places where even light hearted banter is now viewed as some heinous crime .
There seems to be a lot of faux outrage in here!
Leaving any creepy or sexual element to one side, it can by implication downgrade the recipient. Supervisor A is here on merit; supervisor B only got promoted because the boss fancies her, or him. That it might be true does not make it less offensive.
Comments
Having a poor on-field team does tend to limit what any captain can do!
She may be useless, corrupt, and promoted German arms sales to Saudi Arabia (since rightly stopped again), but is there any evidence the German military were in any better shape before she was defence minister?
I mean, Wakefield is a challenge but ...
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
This is BBC Wales report
BBC News - Women in politics: Labour figure's lewd comments to MP - claim
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61245456
Also on Liam Byrne bullying and harassment
BBC News - MP Liam Byrne to be suspended from Commons for bullying former employee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-61235658
So the "banter" has been removed from civilised discourse.
I would never make such remarks at work.
Maybe give he/ she some understanding
Russia holds a lot of Ukrainian territory and every day gets, at high cost a bit more. yes Russia made a mistake in also invading in the north, where the forests and swamps played in to Ukrainian strengths, taking a lot of losses in the prosses, but then made a tactical disition to pull out of that area to reinforces its south and east areas. we can celebrate this a a Ukrainian victory if we want, but the Russians pulled out in reasonably good order, getting most of there men and equipment out.
we can look at the Russian economy and say look its shrinking by 10% or whatever, but that's nothing compared to how badly the Ukrainian economy is shrinking, something like 6 million Ukrainian refuges, and an additional 6.5 million internally displaced, is not sustainable.
We don't know exactly how much equipment each side has lost, Russia has probably lost more, but then it started with a lot more, if one side starts with 4 times the equipment and then looses, twice as much as your opponent, you will, propotiantly be batter positioned than you opponent, and this may well be where we are now.
We can talk about the sinking of the Moskva, or the effeteness of the AA ManPads, as much as we like, but Russia still dominates the sea and air. and however slowly is advancing on land.
I'm not a general, and don't have all the information, perhaps Ukraine is preparing a counterattack with all the western equipment that is being supplied and now troops that are being trained as we speak. I do hope this is the case, but I see little evidence of it.
A key giveaway is the term "banter". A good rule of thumb is that anyone using the word is usually out of order.
Neither had a plan for the death trap cycle lane introduced next to the new tram track, so my vote is still up for grabs.
Entetaining that a couple of grifters who don't feel the need to put their own appeal to voters to the test call themseves The Majority. At least they've improved their proof reading game.
Against that background what specifically is it that makes it ridiculous to treat Putin "like a nuclear warhead that might go off at any moment"? His fundamental decency and humanity? See above under child rape. The fundamental decency and humanity of his generals? See above under child rape, and launch protocols. So, what's the answer?
Against that background, you think I am saying Let the bully have his way, for fear of consequences. That ignores the "big stick" element. Actually, I am an active member of the Let's sort out the Bully committee. The two things I least want from other members of that committee are 1. Your mother smells of wee talk which has no effect other than to incite the bully to carry on bullying weakling non committee members and 2. Hey bully, here are our secret plans to deal with you, what do you think of that? talk.
And those are what Truss has to offer.
So yes, whoever said it is a dinosaur but I'd also blame the Party and House authorities for not issuing clear guidelines that spell out *why* certain things that used to be commonplace, and even that might have been intended as a compliment, are no longer acceptable.
If you're not sure whether saying to someone "all the men/women/whatever want to sleep with you" is going to be welcomed by the other person, then it's actually very easy to not say it.
Making history by voting for Labour x3
Wallis is one of the owners of a company called Fields Holdings Limited, the parent company of Action Direct (UK) Limited, a former claims management company of which Wallis was a director in 2011[10] when the Ministry of Justice banned it from taking on any further employment claims work, following an investigation into the company's conduct.[11][12]
In July 2010, a Freedom of Information request (2417) was made to Bridgend County Borough Council (BCBC) asking how many complaints or referrals to Trading Standards had been made about a Field House associated company Rapid Data Recovery Ltd, which returned the response that between 1 January 2009 and mid-2010, 37 complaints had been received, a figure which included associated companies. In January 2020, after being elected to Parliament, Wallis threatened to take legal action against BCBC over the matter under the Freedom of Information Act.[13][14]
...
An investigation by BuzzFeed in January 2020 found that Wallis had been a co-owner of a 'sugar daddy' dating website, "which offered students financial relationships with wealthy 'sponsors'". Although Wallis initially denied links to the company, Buzzfeed found that he had been a director and shareholder of the site's parent company.[17] The Labour MP Jess Phillips called for Wallis to be removed.[18][19] Since the 2019 election, Wallis has quit as director of at least seven companies.[20]
I must apolgise to The Majority, apparently one of the gruesome twosome actually ran for Holyrood last year under Galloway's All For Unity banner. How many of their grand total of 23,299 votes he was responsible for garnering I cannot say.
'Banter' can be for pubs etc where if you're a douche nobody has to hang out with you, not the workplace.
'Jack-in-the-box' design flaw affecting Russian tanks known about for decades
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/27/russian-tanks-reportedly-have-a-jack-in-the-box-design-flaw
I clean up at 100/1 if she succeeds Johnson, but I'd do anything to lose that bet.
Best they send Wills and family on a nice long sabbatical in Australia until it’s calmed down just in case……
I doubt any of us really knows who is winning the war.
I certainly don't. I would like Ukraine to win but that is about it.
BBC News - Women in politics: Labour figure's 'lewd comments to MP' - claim
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61245456
So penetrate a Russian AFV, and you will almost certainly hit something fun. Which means a fire, then an explosion. Or just and explosion.
The war will carry on until the territory issue is unblocked.
He's either a Putinist or a conspiracy theorist who has fallen for Putinists stuff.
I think certain types of men think women are flattered by their unrequited 'sleepability' comments, rather than creeped out by it. It's a reflection on that person's wish that more women viewed them in the same way.
Just be professional and treat everyone with respect at work. It's not difficult.
And the growing evidence is that the Russia is digging deep into the stockpile of AFVs
NY Times blog
Overexaggerated is a thing, it means exaggerated to an excessive degree and your talking about NATO countries being nuked as if its already happened certainly falls under that.
In Iraq I flew a squad of RM out to an T-72 that had been hit by a DU round from a US M1. We were supposed to get the radios out of it or some similar pointless sneaky-beaky exercise. The DU round had gone in one side of the turret, vapourised the top half of the gunner and then out of the other side. The loggies were supposed to have hosed the wreckage out but the lazy sods hadn't done anything and the Iraqi gunner's legs were still there in the seated position. We said words to the effect of 'Fuck This', jumped back in our Lynx and left.
Labour I think will rebuild strongly in their heartlands in the North and Wales and the SNP will hold on in Scotland with little change in most councils there.
I do though think the Conservatives will do surprisingly well in the Midlands however, with Dudley and Walsall and Nuneaton for instance staying Conservative even as the Conservatives lose control of traditional blue bastions in the home counties like Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham and West Oxfordshire
PS: Wife has already decided she will not vote for any of the scumbags.
The top three headlines on the telegraph website are 'MP looking at porn while at work' 'MP suspended for bullying' and 'MP may be prosecuted for fleeing scene of car crash'. That's just in one week. There ate roughly as many employees in my workplace as MPs in the HoC, and I'm pretty sure there hasn't been one incident like this in the five years I've been there.
I mean, these things do happen. MPs are human. But we should surely expect them to happen rather less frequently.
Exaggerate means attach excessive importance to, so overexaggerate means attach excessive excessive importance to.
I have never advocated any reduction in the aid we are giving to Ukraine, even if that means an enhanced risk of nuclear war. What I want, is squawky Liz to stop squawking about it
What is the evidence that Putin's threats are empty? Here's what I said a bit ago
"Putin is, I think we can agree, borderline insane, immoral to the extent orf tacitly approving the rape of children, prepared to promote the aggrandisement of Russia at all costs, 70 years old and as likely as not, terminally ill, with little remaining life to lose. He has the world's second biggest nuclear arsenal, of which probably at least 10% is in working order, and his biggest weapon is brand new and therefore not suffering from the lack of maintenance which is the main problem with his conventional materiel. Nobody knows what the launch protocols are for his weapons but it seems certain that when you are designing those protocols you take it as almost inevitable that there will be a faction against launching when push comes to shove, and you design in safeguards against interference with the launch."
Where precisely are you getting "empty" from?
I just think cabinet ministers conducting a debate which we've barely started, and certainly haven't concluded with our allies, by way of public speeches, isn't particularly responsible. And when they're transparently doing it as a pitch for the party leadership, it's irresponsible.
We’re in danger of turning office spaces into sterile places where even light hearted banter is now viewed as some heinous crime .
There seems to be a lot of faux outrage in here!
Yes it is exaggerated excessively.
Liz absolutely should not stop "squawking" about it because its literally her job to be doing so. That is what the Foreign Secretary is there for, she is helping lead and put pressure on Germany and other recalcitrant nations to provide maximum support to Ukraine to help ensure that Russia loses this war and Ukraine wins it.
But you seem reluctant to actually accept the UK's goals. You seem excessively afraid of the idea that Putin will turn nuclear if he loses.
So let me ask you a simple question: Do you want to see Russia lose this war, to the point that they have no choice but to pull out of all of Ukraine, including all of occupied Donbas and Crimea? Or would you prefer to see Putin win the war or be able to keep some of the land he has seized?
Is it solely because the
PCR Claims4 You--> HART Group and descendants were the only ones who believed his crap through 2020 so he loyally promoted their mouthpieces Will Jones and Claire Craig, who were fervent antivaxxers?Every bloody day he seems to be promoting another daft antivaxxer conspiracy. Now it's that boosters in Iceland caused their excess deaths over winter (having had zero effect in first and second doses). Whilst their exit wave of covid, which crested in perfect synchronicity with the deaths (well, about three weeks in advance of the deaths, which is what you'd expect) picking off the unvaxxed was sheer coincidence.
Seriously, when someone is fervently against any and all action to prevent viral spread, including vaccination, you get to the point where you've got to define them as pro-virus rather than anti-anything-else.
The problem is that despite having been so consistently and horribly wrong throughout, from "it only hurries a handful of really old and frail people into the grave a few months early" through "it's just a mild flu for anyone under eighty" through "casedemic" and "false positives" and "there's no way it can have a
secondthirdfourth wave," and "vaccines don't stop you getting ill, just testing positive," and "the true IFR is under 0.1%," and the rest of it... people still seem to read and believe things he says!YouGov
Latest Westminster voting intention (26-27 Apr)
Lab: 39% (n/c from 19-20 Apr)
Con: 33% (n/c)
Lib Dem: 11% (+2)
Green: 6% (-2)
SNP: 5% (+1)
Reform UK: 3% (n/c)
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1519417943955808257
Tangentially I watched the documentary about making Apocalypse Now the other night. It's as good as the film itself. Filming the "You either fight or you surf" scene was a nightmare because Marcos's helicopters were there in their spare time from fighting an actual war, so you'd rehearse one lot of pilots one day but then have to start again next morning cos the first lot were 30 miles away flying ground attack IRL.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC)
Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC)
Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
We don't need to "conclude" negotiations with our allies before the Foreign Secretary of the UK can say what the UK's objectives are - it is entirely appropriate and diplomatic for the UK's top diplomat to be diplomatically saying in a keynote speech the UK's objectives. That is how Foreign Secretary's have conducted diplomacy for a long time before Truss too.
If you object to the UK's objectives as you don't want Russia to lose the war, that's a different matter.
If we made it so that the cost of tipping rubbish into landfill was the cost of the hole in the ground + the lorry to take it there, the cost of rubbish disposal (particularly from council tips) would fall to almost nothing, tips could then be free for all (inc building trade waste) and flytipping would cease to be a problem (instead of costing councils a fortune).
As a bonus, if we burnt the rubbish before stuffing it in the holes in the ground, we'd get some cheap electricity too.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1519417943955808257
and feel free to white feather @Dura_Ace for posting it. Almost impossible to accept it is not satirical.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/28/welsh-female-mp-accuses-labour-frontbencher-of-sexist-remark