"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
And which is more dangerous: a weak and failing man with nukes, or a strong and successful one?
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
Lancashire to reclaim Barrow!
And while their forces are deployed elsewhere, Yorkshire will take the opportunity to seize Barnoldswick.
NYT ($) Tech Fix - Truth Social Review: Trump’s Uncensored Social App Is Incomplete The Trump-backed social media app is inundated with phony accounts and features that don’t work. It also hides some posts, including those with curse words.
. . . . The heightened interest in Truth Social, which debuted in February, was driven by a recent tech upgrade of the app that allowed a flood of users to join it. At the same time, there is more uncertainty about Twitter. . . .
I decided to wade into this stew by testing Truth Social. Despite its hype, the app had a glitchy debut [w]hen it was released in February . . .
I was wait-listed at No. 412,553. Then on Saturday, I was suddenly let in. I punched in my phone number to go through the sign-up process and jumped in with interest.
Assessing a social media app — especially one this young — is not simple, especially in trying to see how much free speech it really permits. The app does do some moderation of posts. But because it does not have a set of community guidelines, it’s unclear what triggers the content decisions that get made. And while some posts that were prohibited on Twitter were available on Truth Social, other types of posts were hidden because of curse words.
To say I was underwhelmed would be an understatement. After a wait of two months to join the app, Truth Social seemed unfinished and the crowd felt thin. . . .
. . .The app looked like a clone of Twitter. Truth Social has a main news feed, a search tool, a messaging system and a button to compose a “Truth,” which is the equivalent of a tweet.
Truth Social immediately recommended a list of a few dozen accounts to follow, including Fox News, The Epoch Times and, of course, Mr. Trump himself. The former president has posted only one Truth, and that was back in February: “Get Ready! Your favorite President will see you soon!” To date, he has accrued 1.88 million followers. . . .
A large part of the app was broken . . .
In general, there wasn’t enough activity on Truth Social to get a strong sense of whether its content moderation policies were looser than those of mainstream social media. . . .
In some cases, the app appeared stricter than Twitter. While Twitter allows some pornographic content, Truth Social forbids sexual content and language altogether, according to its terms of service. . . .
To test the app’s claims about political ideology, I published a Truth with a New York Times Opinion article that was critical of the Republican Party, and other posts with news articles about the Jan. 6 riot and how Truth Social’s prospects could be hurt by Mr. Musk’s takeover of Twitter. None of the posts were flagged as problematic. That suggested the app wasn’t discriminating based on politics, just as it had said it wouldn’t. . . .
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
And which is more dangerous: a weak and failing man with nukes, or a strong and successful one?
The strong one.
Should we be providing aid to Russia to make Putin stronger, so that he doesn't use his nukes?
NYT ($) Tech Fix - Truth Social Review: Trump’s Uncensored Social App Is Incomplete The Trump-backed social media app is inundated with phony accounts and features that don’t work. It also hides some posts, including those with curse words.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
Lancashire to reclaim Barrow!
And while their forces are deployed elsewhere, Yorkshire will take the opportunity to seize Barnoldswick.
And when Barnold complains about the sexual harassment we'll all say hur hur hur, snowflake doesn't recognise a bit of locker room bantz when he sees it.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
Lancashire to reclaim Barrow!
And while their forces are deployed elsewhere, Yorkshire will take the opportunity to seize Barnoldswick.
Why stop there?
Is Crackpot still in Yorkshire (North Riding)? OR has it been transferred to Wokeshire (Right Soke)?
Not sure if anyone has made much comment on the thread header since all the talk seems to be of Ukraine.
But I think Mike's comments are a little bit misleading. He appears to be comparing the prospective results of this year's locals with those of last years when he should be comparing them with the last time these seats were fought which was in 2018. It is important because these seats are more naturally anti Tory leaning.
So Mike is quoting last year's local results of 40/30/15/15
when the last time these seats were fought the results were actually 35/35/16/14
This is the base line comparison we should be working from.
I would love to see the Tories get a good smacking in these elections in the hope it results in a challenge to Johnson but we have to be making accurate comparisons rather than false ones.
May have been mentioned, but this isn't right. The point of NEVS is it is a projection of vote share if ALL of the country had been contested. So it corrects for a set of seats up in a particular year being in more Tory or more Labour areas, and should be comparable year on year. It isn't a simple addition of votes cast on May 5th which as you say would be an issue.
This year it will be "weighted" (if you like) quite heavily to the Tories as a lot of the votes will be in London, Scotland, Birmingham etc. So the Tory NEVS reported will in fact be quite a bit higher than actual vote share if you just add up votes cast for them and divide by total votes cast.
Yes but the NEVs the last time these seats were fought were as I stated. That seems the only reasonable way to eliminate the seat variation and make a proper comparison. Anything else is little better than voodoo.
On topic AND politicalbetting post. And yet another by election due to sleaze, this time Starmer backing the end of Liam Byrnes political career, via suspension, recall and by election.
With both Labour and Tories mired in sleaze on eve of big elections, this is the moment for Lib Dems and greens to win big from both main parties and be winners on the night?
Not so fast. A recall petition requires 10 days or 14 sitting days suspension, he's got 2. He only goes if he wants to.
I believe he’s made a statement saying he has learned valuable lessons and is now a better person. Sounds like he wants to stay.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
Lancashire to reclaim Barrow!
And while their forces are deployed elsewhere, Yorkshire will take the opportunity to seize Barnoldswick.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Maybe, but the 'nukes' bit is worrying.
Absolutely. Do you think that means we should give in to anything Putin demands?
It's rather a shame that we in the west thought it was a wizard wheeze for Ukraine to get rid of its nukes then.
PB Point of Order - has Leon made an appearance recently?
Last I can recall of him, was him taking a picture of an open container of beer inside his rental car somewhere in Alabama.
Am hopeful he is NOT in custody of Colbert Co Sheriff in Tuscumbia. Which was BTW (also FYI) the birthplace of Helen Keller, and locale of the famous pump.
Also FYI (and BTW) Helen Keller was a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Which might (or might not) prove useful to our fellow traveling PBer.
PB Point of Order - has Leon made an appearance recently?
Last I can recall of him, was him taking a picture of an open container of beer inside his rental car somewhere in Alabama.
Am hopeful he is NOT in custody of Colbert Co Sheriff in Tuscumbia. Which was BTW (also FYI) the birthplace of Helen Keller, and locale of the famous pump.
Also FYI (and BTW) Helen Keller was a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Which might (or might not) prove useful to our fellow traveling PBer.
Hasn't posted since Monday, but his profile shows him as having been active at 3:10am UK time today.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
So every time Russia starts something, it has to win?
We've got a few nukes. Can we try and invade France? We could just keep Brittany in the end.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
So every time Russia starts something, it has to win?
We've got a few nukes. Can we try and invade France? We could just keep Brittany in the end.
I've got a prior claim on Mersault and Chablis, if we do conquer France.
NYT ($) Tech Fix - Truth Social Review: Trump’s Uncensored Social App Is Incomplete The Trump-backed social media app is inundated with phony accounts and features that don’t work. It also hides some posts, including those with curse words.
NYT ($) Tech Fix - Truth Social Review: Trump’s Uncensored Social App Is Incomplete The Trump-backed social media app is inundated with phony accounts and features that don’t work. It also hides some posts, including those with curse words.
I seemed to remember there was some Chinese bloke involved somewhere, that had taken that open source code, then built a bit on top and tried his own social media app, which failed. Then TRUTH was basically a copy / pasta version of that.
Gosh 33 Billion US dollars is a lot, in the context of this war, do we know the timescales for it to be spent, or on what?
For context. The Russian military budget is said to be $70 billion. Total. Includes all the nukes.
I would imagine that the $70 billion will include the pay of its 900,000 people in uniform and their MOD civil servants plus the upkeep of buildings equipment and so on, so how much is spent on equipment? I don't know but if we look at the NATO preference 2.0% total and 0.7% on equipment, then a third on equipment, that's 24 billion on equipment each year, of which some will be Navy,
Probably true but what it comes down to is The Sun investigated the rumours but could not find enough evidence. We can all think of other public figures about whom there have been rumours but no evidence, who have been arrested and then cleared. Should the red-tops have been free to ruin their lives, or yours, as well as Savile's?
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 57m Replying to @PhillipsPOBrien Also seems to indicate the Biden administration is convinced Putin is bluffing about nuclear weapons, as this is a direct challenge to everything Putin has said about escalating in response to NATO support for Ukraine.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
So every time Russia starts something, it has to win?
We've got a few nukes. Can we try and invade France? We could just keep Brittany in the end.
I've got a prior claim on Mersault and Chablis, if we do conquer France.
Supply lines might be awkward.
I guess we could claim to need an exclave with access to the Great Wine Lake.
Here's my utterly inexpert crunching of numbers about the sh*t the Russian military is in.
From wiki: "As of August 2021, Russia had about 170 BTGs. Each BTG has approximately 600–800 officers and soldiers, of whom roughly 200 are infantrymen, equipped with vehicles typically including roughly 10 tanks and 40 infantry fighting vehicles."
Russia started the war with well over 100 BTGs on the border of Ukraine. Therefore they put a large proportion of their capability into the invasion effort.
So far, Russia has lost a minimum of 579 tanks. Let us say 550 tanks. That is the equivalent of 55 BTGs. Worse, that is if the ones being destroyed are all in the same BTGs: you could also say that it is half the tanks in 110 BTGs, or a third in 165.
The US military says that when an army unit reaches 50 to 69 percent of its 'full' strength, it becomes ineffective. Less than 50% and it needs to be withdrawn for reconstitution.
Oryx has Russia losing 619 Infantry Fighting Vehicles. That is 'just' 15 BTG's-worth, but they have also lost 321 Armoured fighting vehicles, 103 Armoured Personnel Carriers and 101 Infantry Mobility Vehicles which might be included, depending on definition.
Yes, Russia can call in other tanks and fighting vehicles, but that may involve weakening parts of their massive border they want to keep secure. Or they could get them out of 'storage' - but stored tanks will largely be of lower quality, unmodernised, and they will have lost some of their best crews.
As for troops: Ukraine claims 22,800 Russian troops killed. The UK says around 15,000 killed. Russia's figures are ludicrously low and outdated, and can be discarded.
Let us say 15,000 is ballpark. If we take 900 as the maximum number of troops in a BTG, then around 16 BTGs-worth of troops have been obliterated.
However, that figure counts just dead troops. Taking a ratio of 2 injured or captured to every dead soldier, then we can assume another 32 BTGs worth of troops are fully, or temporarily, unavailable for service. (Some argue poor Russian frontline medical care means the ratio is higher).
So it can be argued that they have 'lost' roughly 50 BTG's worth of tanks and soldiers. Out of 170 in the entire army.
In two months.
Russia can still 'win' this war by conventional means, but they will have hollowed out their army in the process.
That is a fair analysis. As for Nukes, the same equation as in the Cold War holds: will the other side fire?
The Russians understand that the risk is very high that NATO and possibly even China would mark that as a step beyond. So hence the increasing panic in Moscow. The next two weeks they will throw the kitchen sink at Eastern Ukraine, but if they fail they are in real trouble. Extending conscription would lead to protest, and once that starts the regime is on very unstable ground. The joke over here is that they chose Z, the last letter, as symbol, because it is the end of Putin.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
They did not win the Cold War and had a a much larger nuclear force then.
Probably true but what it comes down to is The Sun investigated the rumours but could not find enough evidence. We can all think of other public figures about whom there have been rumours but no evidence, who have been arrested and then cleared. Should the red-tops have been free to ruin their lives, or yours, as well as Savile's?
It worth noting that the individual making the claims is head of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has previously some rather large issues around naming and shaming innocent people accused of similar actions.
Gosh 33 Billion US dollars is a lot, in the context of this war, do we know the timescales for it to be spent, or on what?
For context. The Russian military budget is said to be $70 billion. Total. Includes all the nukes.
I would imagine that the $70 billion will include the pay of its 900,000 people in uniform and their MOD civil servants plus the upkeep of buildings equipment and so on, so how much is spent on equipment? I don't know but if we look at the NATO preference 2.0% total and 0.7% on equipment, then a third on equipment, that's 24 billion on equipment each year, of which some will be Navy,
Not to mention the proportion that went on buying precision timing equipment from Switzerland for the top brass.
Probably true but what it comes down to is The Sun investigated the rumours but could not find enough evidence. We can all think of other public figures about whom there have been rumours but no evidence, who have been arrested and then cleared. Should the red-tops have been free to ruin their lives, or yours, as well as Savile's?
IIRC Saville had form for calling in his learned friends. Or at least threatening to do so. Which rather suggests that your first sentence is correct!
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
It is not remotely clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of Ukraine.
I'd estimate it as a 25% chance they can be pushed out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea, a 50/50 shot that they'll be pushed out of all excluding Crimea (ie Donbas) and 85% they'll be pushed back to 2014 borders.
Even just the last option would be a very successful Ukrainian defence.
A paper bear with nukes is not going to win, it is going to lose. Ukraine equally has allies with nukes on its side.
Biden is effectively putting the money where Liz Truss’s mouth was the other day.
The West (at least US/UK) is not backing down.
Having said that, Ukraine’s task is formidable. I am pessimistic they can expel Russia from the Donbass, and certainly not from Crimea.
Perhaps their chances are better in Kherson oblast.
The likeliest outcome to me remains what @YBarddCwsc has suggested since the beginning of the war: plebiscites in Russian held oblasts, and some form of security guarantee for rump Ukraine.
I think @YBarddCwsc’s logic is slightly flawed, but his prediction still seems right to me.
Longer-term, Putin still faces a reinvigorated (and likely expanded NATO) and removal of custom for his oil and gas, so he is still sitting on a strategic defeat.
I am not convinced he cares. I agree with Bill Browder that he is primarily motivated by maintaining his position in the mafia he has created.
Another step closer to all-out war in my opinion. Slip, sliding towards it...
Maybe we have no choice.
I think we are gradually ratcheting up what is considered acceptable. So we never cross the line. In February sending tanks would have been unthinkable, we were only sending "defensive" weapons, whatever they are.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
So every time Russia starts something, it has to win?
We've got a few nukes. Can we try and invade France? We could just keep Brittany in the end.
Good analogy, because of the obvious parallel between France and Ukraine where nukes are concerned. Perfect fit, nearly.
And nukes are inherently comic, too, or something you launch from orbit in sci fi movies. Again, well done.
On topic AND politicalbetting post. And yet another by election due to sleaze, this time Starmer backing the end of Liam Byrnes political career, via suspension, recall and by election.
With both Labour and Tories mired in sleaze on eve of big elections, this is the moment for Lib Dems and greens to win big from both main parties and be winners on the night?
Biden is effectively putting the money where Liz Truss’s mouth was the other day.
The West (at least US/UK) is not backing down.
Having said that, Ukraine’s task is formidable. I am pessimistic they can expel Russia from the Donbass, and certainly not from Crimea.
Perhaps their chances are better in Kherson oblast.
The likeliest outcome to me remains what @YBarddCwsc has suggested since the beginning of the war: plebiscites in Russian held oblasts, and some form of security guarantee for rump Ukraine.
I think @YBarddCwsc’s logic is slightly flawed, but his prediction still seems right to me.
It also makes it explicitly clear that Truss was not speaking out of line, or simply posturing for political leadership as some ridiculously tried to claim this morning, she was doing the job of the Foreign Secretary.
No doubt before Truss spoke there had already been conversations with our allies like Biden and quite appropriately too. It is not a coincidence that we are on the same page here, though it will irritate Putinguy1983 no end I'm sure.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
It is not remotely clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of Ukraine.
I'd estimate it as a 25% chance they can be pushed out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea, a 50/50 shot that they'll be pushed out of all excluding Crimea (ie Donbas) and 85% they'll be pushed back to 2014 borders.
Even just the last option would be a very successful Ukrainian defence.
A paper bear with nukes is not going to win, it is going to lose. Ukraine equally has allies with nukes on its side.
On pb.ru, there is a Бартоломью Робертс.
He is busy posting Putin's absurd 'We were cornered, we had no other choice, we have got to get serious & use our nukes."
O/t, but. This afternoon OKC was at a U3a meeting, where the speaker was talking about her life as a theatre costumier. At one point she made a joke about something during Lockdown not being a party. And we all laughed. It’s not going away.
The West seriously under-estimated Vlad the Terrible, in particular his humanity, empathy and state of mental health if not sanity.
(Personally think he's crazy as a rabid fox, but (unlike Foxy) have zero qualifications to judge his medico-mental condition.)
AND appears that he and many others seriously under-estimated the Demented Vegetable-in-Chief currently occupying the White House (the old fashioned way).
May be that he's just another One-Term Wonder as POTUS plodding in the footsteps of Adams(s), Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, Taft, Hoover, Jimmy Carter and Bush the Elder.
Right now just glad Joe Biden in President, for the sake of Ukraine, Europe (including UK), the USA and the world.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
It is not remotely clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of Ukraine.
I'd estimate it as a 25% chance they can be pushed out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea, a 50/50 shot that they'll be pushed out of all excluding Crimea (ie Donbas) and 85% they'll be pushed back to 2014 borders.
Even just the last option would be a very successful Ukrainian defence.
A paper bear with nukes is not going to win, it is going to lose. Ukraine equally has allies with nukes on its side.
On pb.ru, there is a Бартоломью Робертс.
He is busy posting Putin's absurd 'We were cornered, we had no other choice, we have got to get serious & use our nukes."
So it goes.
And on politicalbetting.com there's YBarddCwsc posting Putin's absurd claims.
I don't expect you to substantiate your ridiculous obsession that Ukraine is at fault for Minsk despite all evidence to the contrary, but do you care to substantiate your idea Ukraine won't be able to repel Russia out of Ukraine considering they've already managed to do so across the whole of the North?
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
So every time Russia starts something, it has to win?
We've got a few nukes. Can we try and invade France? We could just keep Brittany in the end.
Good analogy, because of the obvious parallel between France and Ukraine where nukes are concerned. Perfect fit, nearly.
And nukes are inherently comic, too, or something you launch from orbit in sci fi movies. Again, well done.
It's more akin to Britain invading Ireland and shelling its cities into piles of rubble, on order to "prevent genocide in Ulster" (or France trying to reoccupy Algeria on some equally nonsense pretext). But even a UKIP-led version of the UK or Zemmour-led France would of course not do it given the huge moral and financial pressure it would face, and the prospect of being ostracised by the world. That prospect doesn't seem to trouble Russia, which I suppose is the issue. The Millwall of countries.
But I see Johnson is STILL LYING with his risible claim that he only attended his wife’s party to conduct a job interview.
It’s possible this gets him off another FPN (as who can say otherwise?), but the casualty is of course the public, who suffer a loss of dignity in being expected to accept this horse-shit.
Biden is effectively putting the money where Liz Truss’s mouth was the other day.
The West (at least US/UK) is not backing down.
Having said that, Ukraine’s task is formidable. I am pessimistic they can expel Russia from the Donbass, and certainly not from Crimea.
Perhaps their chances are better in Kherson oblast.
The likeliest outcome to me remains what @YBarddCwsc has suggested since the beginning of the war: plebiscites in Russian held oblasts, and some form of security guarantee for rump Ukraine.
I think @YBarddCwsc’s logic is slightly flawed, but his prediction still seems right to me.
Longer-term, Putin still faces a reinvigorated (and likely expanded NATO) and removal of custom for his oil and gas, so he is still sitting on a strategic defeat.
I am not convinced he cares. I agree with Bill Browder that he is primarily motivated by maintaining his position in the mafia he has created.
Doubt that, since it is hard to see what he could have done which was more obviously going to destabilise his position in that mafia. I think he is an old, possibly sick, possibly terminally, man in a hurry, in search of a legacy in the shape of leaving a bigger Greater Russia than he inherited. And the sicker he is the better the nuclear option looks in terms of faster results vs extent to which he remains alive to face up to a nuclear hangover.
Note to mouthbreathers: to outline this scenario is not the same thing as wanting it. get your mum to explain.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Maybe, but the 'nukes' bit is worrying.
Absolutely. Do you think that means we should give in to anything Putin demands?
It's rather a shame that we in the west thought it was a wizard wheeze for Ukraine to get rid of its nukes then.
I think you can be queasy about triumphalist bellicosity whilst still being pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia on the war. Fact, I know you can because I am and I am!
As May 9th approaches, when Putin needs a rousing message for his public, I wonder which of the following is going to be closer to the mark -
(i) "The Donbass is denazified and joined to Crimea. Russian Ukraine has been restored and the special military operation is successful and complete. Rejoice in that news."
(ii) "The special military operation in Ukraine has been hampered by America and its satellites. Ignoring all warnings they have interfered on the side of the Nazis and we have no choice but to respond. We did not want war but we are ready. Victory will be ours."
ie a de-escalation or an escalation?
Maybe something else, who knows, but these are the bookends, I reckon. And I think I'd rather hear (i) than (ii). Which I mean purely literally. I'd rather *hear* that.
Biden is effectively putting the money where Liz Truss’s mouth was the other day.
The West (at least US/UK) is not backing down.
Having said that, Ukraine’s task is formidable. I am pessimistic they can expel Russia from the Donbass, and certainly not from Crimea.
Perhaps their chances are better in Kherson oblast.
The likeliest outcome to me remains what @YBarddCwsc has suggested since the beginning of the war: plebiscites in Russian held oblasts, and some form of security guarantee for rump Ukraine.
I think @YBarddCwsc’s logic is slightly flawed, but his prediction still seems right to me.
Longer-term, Putin still faces a reinvigorated (and likely expanded NATO) and removal of custom for his oil and gas, so he is still sitting on a strategic defeat.
I am not convinced he cares. I agree with Bill Browder that he is primarily motivated by maintaining his position in the mafia he has created.
The question is whether the Mafia will still want him.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Maybe, but the 'nukes' bit is worrying.
Absolutely. Do you think that means we should give in to anything Putin demands?
It's rather a shame that we in the west thought it was a wizard wheeze for Ukraine to get rid of its nukes then.
I think you can be queasy about triumphalist bellicosity whilst still being pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia on the war. Fact, I know you can because I am and I am!
As May 9th approaches, when Putin needs a rousing message for his public, I wonder which of the following is going to be closer to the mark -
(i) "The Donbass is denazified and joined to Crimea. Russian Ukraine has been restored and the special military operation is successful and complete. Rejoice in that news."
(ii) "The special military operation in Ukraine has been hampered by America and its satellites. Ignoring all warnings they have interfered on the side of the Nazis and we have no choice but to respond. We did not want war but we are ready. Victory will be ours."
ie a de-escalation or an escalation?
Maybe something else, who knows, but these are the bookends, I reckon. And I think I'd rather hear (i) than (ii). Which I mean purely literally. I'd rather *hear* that.
Knowing what is implied by denazification, are you really sure you would rather hear him saying "mission accomplished"?
Biden is effectively putting the money where Liz Truss’s mouth was the other day.
The West (at least US/UK) is not backing down.
Having said that, Ukraine’s task is formidable. I am pessimistic they can expel Russia from the Donbass, and certainly not from Crimea.
Perhaps their chances are better in Kherson oblast.
The likeliest outcome to me remains what @YBarddCwsc has suggested since the beginning of the war: plebiscites in Russian held oblasts, and some form of security guarantee for rump Ukraine.
I think @YBarddCwsc’s logic is slightly flawed, but his prediction still seems right to me.
Longer-term, Putin still faces a reinvigorated (and likely expanded NATO) and removal of custom for his oil and gas, so he is still sitting on a strategic defeat.
I am not convinced he cares. I agree with Bill Browder that he is primarily motivated by maintaining his position in the mafia he has created.
The question is whether the Mafia will still want him.
I’m not going to pretend to be a Kremlinologist.
I would just say that the motivations that we might think rational (avoid too many Russian deaths; maintain Russian living standards; maintain various assets in the West) may be less important to Putin and his mafia than simply maintaining his and their position in the kleptocracy.
The deadline for submitting Scottish census returns has been extended by a month after a record number of householders failed to complete their forms or delayed sending them in.
Angus Robertson, the Scottish constitution secretary, faced opposition accusations he had presided over a “disastrous” process after he told MSPs on Thursday nearly a quarter of householders had not yet submitted returns, with the original deadline in three days.
Last time i was with a Finnish officer I asked him about NATO. He just laughed and said "what's the point, Russia would never get through Finland anyway!"
===
So maybe Sweden has no point joining NATO in that case.
Gosh 33 Billion US dollars is a lot, in the context of this war, do we know the timescales for it to be spent, or on what?
For context. The Russian military budget is said to be $70 billion. Total. Includes all the nukes.
I would imagine that the $70 billion will include the pay of its 900,000 people in uniform and their MOD civil servants plus the upkeep of buildings equipment and so on, so how much is spent on equipment? I don't know but if we look at the NATO preference 2.0% total and 0.7% on equipment, then a third on equipment, that's 24 billion on equipment each year, of which some will be Navy,
I've made this point before: Russia tries to have a military to match the USAs, but with one-eighth to one-tenth of the budget (depending on where you get the figures). Even with Russia's PPP, it's a massive gap.
Take manpower: they *had* 900,000 active personnel and 2,000,000 reserves. The US has 1,400,000 active personnel and 840,000 reserves.
Even if 'reserves' are cheaper to run, then there's a massive disparity in the amount you can pay them if you also want to invest in equipment. And to be effective, you need to spend money on reserves, or their skills wither.
They've spread themselves mightily thin. They are trying to do everything, and perhaps they've ended up doing little well. Why do they need an aircraft carrier? Do they really need cruisers? They have a massive land area, and whilst their SSBN equivalents perform a valuable strategic role, what role does the rest of their navy fulfil?
Biden is effectively putting the money where Liz Truss’s mouth was the other day.
The West (at least US/UK) is not backing down.
Having said that, Ukraine’s task is formidable. I am pessimistic they can expel Russia from the Donbass, and certainly not from Crimea.
Perhaps their chances are better in Kherson oblast.
The likeliest outcome to me remains what @YBarddCwsc has suggested since the beginning of the war: plebiscites in Russian held oblasts, and some form of security guarantee for rump Ukraine.
I think @YBarddCwsc’s logic is slightly flawed, but his prediction still seems right to me.
Longer-term, Putin still faces a reinvigorated (and likely expanded NATO) and removal of custom for his oil and gas, so he is still sitting on a strategic defeat.
I am not convinced he cares. I agree with Bill Browder that he is primarily motivated by maintaining his position in the mafia he has created.
The question is whether the Mafia will still want him.
I’m not going to pretend to be a Kremlinologist.
I would just say that the motivations that we might think rational (avoid too many Russian deaths; maintain Russian living standards; maintain various assets in the West) may be less important to Putin and his mafia than simply maintaining his and their position in the kleptocracy.
I don't buy this: when you are the biggest cheese on the world stage* with the glorious destiny of Mother russia in your charge why would you be bothered with a couple of dozen venal slobs whom you basically pay to keep out of Russia and out of your way? his motive is empire building. We have recently grown out of that and think everybody else has, but they haven't. People want to conquer the world, just because they can. Hence the off pointness of saying What use is Ukraine to him, it's devastated tae fuck and everyone hates him. He just wants it to be Russia coloured on the map
* Potus is disqualified because it's such a here today, gone tomorrow deal even with 2 terms. Xi is too inscrutable to count.
And on politicalbetting.com there's YBarddCwsc posting Putin's absurd claims.
I don't expect you to substantiate your ridiculous obsession that Ukraine is at fault for Minsk despite all evidence to the contrary, but do you care to substantiate your idea Ukraine won't be able to repel Russia out of Ukraine considering they've already managed to do so across the whole of the North?
Putin thought that he could take Ukraine in 3-4 days. NATO thought that getting rid of Gadhafi would result in a new era of peace and prosperity in Libya. At the start, the US/UK invasion of Iraq was a clean, surgical operation to get rid of Saddam and establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. And let's not even mention Afghanistan.
Have you noticed something?
This simplistic analysis of beginning & escalating military conflicts always starts with the hope of a quick, precise and relatively bloodless solution. Not years and years of a bloody great fucking war with a huge death toll.
But, that is what wars are like.
They don't go as expected and very quickly get out of hand. That is where this war is heading, because all wars do. Increasing involvement of NATO will end with a series of tit for tat 'tactical' nuclear strikes.
This collective insanity has got to end. Way, way too many people are infected by this thirst for a war, ignoring the fact that wars are always, always much more deadly than initial expectations.
And yet on pb.com, we have an almost absolute majority of posters endlessly war-mongering, wanting, demanding, baying for an escalation to this.
(And no surprise, the feckin LibDems are the most bloodthirsty).
An escalation will end with many, many more deaths than anyone thinks.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Maybe, but the 'nukes' bit is worrying.
Absolutely. Do you think that means we should give in to anything Putin demands?
It's rather a shame that we in the west thought it was a wizard wheeze for Ukraine to get rid of its nukes then.
I think you can be queasy about triumphalist bellicosity whilst still being pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia on the war. Fact, I know you can because I am and I am!
As May 9th approaches, when Putin needs a rousing message for his public, I wonder which of the following is going to be closer to the mark -
(i) "The Donbass is denazified and joined to Crimea. Russian Ukraine has been restored and the special military operation is successful and complete. Rejoice in that news."
(ii) "The special military operation in Ukraine has been hampered by America and its satellites. Ignoring all warnings they have interfered on the side of the Nazis and we have no choice but to respond. We did not want war but we are ready. Victory will be ours."
ie a de-escalation or an escalation?
Maybe something else, who knows, but these are the bookends, I reckon. And I think I'd rather hear (i) than (ii). Which I mean purely literally. I'd rather *hear* that.
Knowing what is implied by denazification, are you really sure you would rather hear him saying "mission accomplished"?
What I mean is I'm hoping to hear de-escalation language from Putin. A framing of what is really failure as a victory. I'd rather hear that than an intention to escalate.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
So every time Russia starts something, it has to win?
We've got a few nukes. Can we try and invade France? We could just keep Brittany in the end.
Good analogy, because of the obvious parallel between France and Ukraine where nukes are concerned. Perfect fit, nearly.
And nukes are inherently comic, too, or something you launch from orbit in sci fi movies. Again, well done.
Of course nuclear weapons can be comic. There's more than one film to prove it.
Anyway, YBarddCwsc seems to be worried about Russia using them on us, so I'm not sure what advantage France would have.
If it is just possession of their own deterrent that worries you, then perhaps we should invade Ireland? They don't have any nukes. We once "owned" it as part of an empire. We could have a worry about English speakers, after all if they speak English they must be, well, British.
Even if the US objected and sent them arms, they'd have to let us have an extra piece in the end. Just in case.
Of course it is a nonsense, but no more of a nonsense than the current situation.
The likeliest outcome to me remains what @YBarddCwsc has suggested since the beginning of the war: plebiscites in Russian held oblasts
How do you get a free and fair vote in such a plebiscite?
Not possible. Thus is realpolitik.
It’s really Ukraine’s judgement as to their willingness to accept such plebiscites. For as long as they won’t, it’s our job to support them.
In which case, why are you willing to go through the charade of a 'plebiscite'?
Just say it will be Russian territory, illegally held, without any of the moral b/s of a corrupt plebiscite.
Don't hide behind a vote which you know will be b/s.
You are making the mistake of thinking that I “advocate” such an outcome.
I am not sure why, but perhaps you don’t read well.
I am merely suggesting what I think is the most likely outcome, and perhaps further, thinking about where Western strategist think this might “land”.
Then perhaps you should make it clear that you understand that such a plebiscite will be pointless from any moral point-of-view, and calls for it are just playing into Russia's hands?
Apologies if you are *not* in favour of such plebiscites.
The likeliest outcome to me remains what @YBarddCwsc has suggested since the beginning of the war: plebiscites in Russian held oblasts
How do you get a free and fair vote in such a plebiscite?
Not possible.
Indeed. So advocating a plebicite that will inevitably rigged in Russia's favour is pure appeasement.
I’m not sure if you’re suggesting I’m an appeaser? Are you?
I hadn't spotted you as one, but Applicant has a pretty good eye for these matters.
This subthread is such a beautiful illustration of his mode of thought I am going to save it as a case study. He gets from "predict" to "advocate" in five moves; it's like a Go master toying with a novice.
"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."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
Almost all are contestable.
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Several things can be true at the same time.
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
So every time Russia starts something, it has to win?
We've got a few nukes. Can we try and invade France? We could just keep Brittany in the end.
Good analogy, because of the obvious parallel between France and Ukraine where nukes are concerned. Perfect fit, nearly.
And nukes are inherently comic, too, or something you launch from orbit in sci fi movies. Again, well done.
Of course nuclear weapons can be comic. There's more than one film to prove it.
Anyway, YBarddCwsc seems to be worried about Russia using them on us, so I'm not sure what advantage France would have.
I am worried about anyone using nukes on anyone. Not Russian on us.
O/t, but. This afternoon OKC was at a U3a meeting, where the speaker was talking about her life as a theatre costumier. At one point she made a joke about something during Lockdown not being a party. And we all laughed. It’s not going away.
Perhaps Boris Johnson's constant & continual personal buffoonery re: COVID lockdowns and restrictions, aided & abetted by his cabinet, ministers, advisors, spouse, donors, contractors, decorators, caterers, backbenchers, fellow Bullingtonians, doggy life peers, adolescent DMers, Nicky Fabricant in a Boris fright wig, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, has not just underlined this issue, but seared it into the collective ken of the Great British Public?
Not just diminishing his actual achievements, most notably successfully vax procurement & distribution under his watch.
And if not diminishing, then shadowing & clouding his initial leadership in helping rally support, and supply critical weaponry, intelligence & logistics to Ukraine. Including the boost & support the Prime Minister of the UK gave to the President of Ukraine when Zelensky & the Ukrainians really needed it.
Comedy, farce, tragedy, pathos, bathos.
NOT a high point for British politics.
But more entertaining even, than stuffing a dozen drunken Bullingtonians into a big sack, and tossing it into the Thames?
The likeliest outcome to me remains what @YBarddCwsc has suggested since the beginning of the war: plebiscites in Russian held oblasts
How do you get a free and fair vote in such a plebiscite?
Not possible.
Indeed. So advocating a plebicite that will inevitably rigged in Russia's favour is pure appeasement.
I’m not sure if you’re suggesting I’m an appeaser? Are you?
I hadn't spotted you as one, but Applicant has a pretty good eye for these matters.
This subthread is such a beautiful illustration of his mode of thought I am going to save it as a case study. He gets from "predict" to "advocate" in five moves; it's like a Go master toying with a novice.
Comments
2: All of Crimea as well as all of Donbas voted for independence from Russia in the only free and fair vote they ever had on the subject. To claim otherwise is pure Russian shilling. Russia deserves all the blame for invading and fighting since then.
3: Putin has gained nothing. He's occupying some extra territory, not very significant amounts of territory compared to what he sought, and is suffering great losses in order to do so. The only way he will be able to stop the losses will be to relinquish the territory.
4: The war ending swiftly with a Ukrainian defeat, which now thankfully won't happen, would have caused even more and longer lasting suffering.
5: A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine is needed to end the war, with a Ukrainian victory. The more arms we supply, the sooner the Ukrainians can end the war victorious. That will minimise suffering, letting Ukraine fall would maximise it and only half-heartedly supplying them will drag out the war.
6: Nuclear war is the dog that does not bite. There's a risk, but not very significant.
7: Just because a politician you dislike says that Ukraine will be "successful" and Russia will "fail" doesn't make it false.
Russia is approaching borderline failed state status and the simple fact is they've been doing so for the better part of half a century. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed and modern day Russia isn't working either.
Russia isn't a superpower, its not even a major power. Its pure Potemkin. The country had a pre-war GDP smaller than Italy's, with sanctions its economy is going to be approaching roughly that of the Netherlands. The idea that Russia can take on Europe, or NATO, or much really now besides other failed states is beyond
a joke and getting exposed as so.
You may not be able to wrap your head around the fact that Russia is failing, but the rest of us can see they're nothing more than a paper bear with nukes.
Or is it one rule for the Bozo lap dogs and another for everyone else .
The Trump-backed social media app is inundated with phony accounts and features that don’t work. It also hides some posts, including those with curse words.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/27/technology/personaltech/truth-social-review-trump.html?searchResultPosition=1
. . . . The heightened interest in Truth Social, which debuted in February, was driven by a recent tech upgrade of the app that allowed a flood of users to join it. At the same time, there is more uncertainty about Twitter. . . .
I decided to wade into this stew by testing Truth Social. Despite its hype, the app had a glitchy debut [w]hen it was released in February . . .
I was wait-listed at No. 412,553. Then on Saturday, I was suddenly let in. I punched in my phone number to go through the sign-up process and jumped in with interest.
Assessing a social media app — especially one this young — is not simple, especially in trying to see how much free speech it really permits. The app does do some moderation of posts. But because it does not have a set of community guidelines, it’s unclear what triggers the content decisions that get made. And while some posts that were prohibited on Twitter were available on Truth Social, other types of posts were hidden because of curse words.
To say I was underwhelmed would be an understatement. After a wait of two months to join the app, Truth Social seemed unfinished and the crowd felt thin. . . .
. . .The app looked like a clone of Twitter. Truth Social has a main news feed, a search tool, a messaging system and a button to compose a “Truth,” which is the equivalent of a tweet.
Truth Social immediately recommended a list of a few dozen accounts to follow, including Fox News, The Epoch Times and, of course, Mr. Trump himself. The former president has posted only one Truth, and that was back in February: “Get Ready! Your favorite President will see you soon!” To date, he has accrued 1.88 million followers. . . .
A large part of the app was broken . . .
In general, there wasn’t enough activity on Truth Social to get a strong sense of whether its content moderation policies were looser than those of mainstream social media. . . .
In some cases, the app appeared stricter than Twitter. While Twitter allows some pornographic content, Truth Social forbids sexual content and language altogether, according to its terms of service. . . .
To test the app’s claims about political ideology, I published a Truth with a New York Times Opinion article that was critical of the Republican Party, and other posts with news articles about the Jan. 6 riot and how Truth Social’s prospects could be hurt by Mr. Musk’s takeover of Twitter. None of the posts were flagged as problematic. That suggested the app wasn’t discriminating based on politics, just as it had said it wouldn’t. . . .
Should we be providing aid to Russia to make Putin stronger, so that he doesn't use his nukes?
The Sun tried to expose paedophile but had to back down over fears of costly libel case, investigative journalist says
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/jimmy-savile-escaped-justice-because-of-libel-laws-claims-reporter
It's rather a shame that we in the west thought it was a wizard wheeze for Ukraine to get rid of its nukes then.
Last I can recall of him, was him taking a picture of an open container of beer inside his rental car somewhere in Alabama.
Am hopeful he is NOT in custody of Colbert Co Sheriff in Tuscumbia. Which was BTW (also FYI) the birthplace of Helen Keller, and locale of the famous pump.
Also FYI (and BTW) Helen Keller was a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Which might (or might not) prove useful to our fellow traveling PBer.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/Leon
Brexit Opportunities Minister says border controls, explicitly set out in the deal & planned for years with 100s of millions spent, would be “an act of self-harm” https://twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1519691770736558081/video/1
It is clear that Russia is a failed state in many important ways. But, it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be successful in pushing Russia out of all Ukraine.
And, for most of us, it is not consoling to be told that Putin is just a "paper bear with nukes".
5997 nukes, to be precise.
A paper bear with 5997 nukes is going to win.
At least something.
We've got a few nukes. Can we try and invade France? We could just keep Brittany in the end.
https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/10/29/227236/mastodon-puts-trumps-social-network-on-notice-for-improperly-using-its-code
Their back end is now on Rumble’s infrastructure.
I might be confusing it with GETTR.
I am sure TSE has just involuntary let out a bit of wee.
@PhillipsPOBrien
·
57m
Replying to
@PhillipsPOBrien
Also seems to indicate the Biden administration is convinced Putin is bluffing about nuclear weapons, as this is a direct challenge to everything Putin has said about escalating in response to NATO support for Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1519696127695724544
I guess we could claim to need an exclave with access to the Great Wine Lake.
The Russians understand that the risk is very high that NATO and possibly even China would mark that as a step beyond. So hence the increasing panic in Moscow. The next two weeks they will throw the kitchen sink at Eastern Ukraine, but if they fail they are in real trouble. Extending conscription would lead to protest, and once that starts the regime is on very unstable ground. The joke over here is that they chose Z, the last letter, as symbol, because it is the end of Putin.
Another step closer to all-out war in my opinion. Slip, sliding towards it...
Maybe we have no choice.
74 of Labour's 123 general election targets are voting in their entirety at the local elections. The majority of another 11 seats are voting.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jKkG-6we5fYeaAuUY-M1DPdmHz-_RcvWC_y7ErCrBL0/edit#gid=0
Which rather suggests that your first sentence is correct!
I'd estimate it as a 25% chance they can be pushed out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea, a 50/50 shot that they'll be pushed out of all excluding Crimea (ie Donbas) and 85% they'll be pushed back to 2014 borders.
Even just the last option would be a very successful Ukrainian defence.
A paper bear with nukes is not going to win, it is going to lose. Ukraine equally has allies with nukes on its side.
The West (at least US/UK) is not backing down.
Having said that, Ukraine’s task is formidable. I am pessimistic they can expel Russia from the Donbass, and certainly not from Crimea.
Perhaps their chances are better in Kherson oblast.
The likeliest outcome to me remains what @YBarddCwsc has suggested since the beginning of the war: plebiscites in Russian held oblasts, and some form of security guarantee for rump Ukraine.
I think @YBarddCwsc’s logic is slightly flawed, but his prediction still seems right to me.
Longer-term, Putin still faces a reinvigorated (and likely expanded NATO) and removal of custom for his oil and gas, so he is still sitting on a strategic defeat.
I am not convinced he cares. I agree with Bill Browder that he is primarily motivated by maintaining his position in the mafia he has created.
And nukes are inherently comic, too, or something you launch from orbit in sci fi movies. Again, well done.
Current health status for the ones wondering: pissed off second time in 4 months they kill me. Seem also able to ressuscitate.
https://twitter.com/MinoRaiola/status/1519657935193923584?s=20&t=s2iJwj3oOweokW3-oIQUVw
And still some in here keep trying to polish the Brexit turd !
No doubt before Truss spoke there had already been conversations with our allies like Biden and quite appropriately too. It is not a coincidence that we are on the same page here, though it will irritate Putinguy1983 no end I'm sure.
He is busy posting Putin's absurd 'We were cornered, we had no other choice, we have got to get serious & use our nukes."
So it goes.
It’s not going away.
(Personally think he's crazy as a rabid fox, but (unlike Foxy) have zero qualifications to judge his medico-mental condition.)
AND appears that he and many others seriously under-estimated the Demented Vegetable-in-Chief currently occupying the White House (the old fashioned way).
May be that he's just another One-Term Wonder as POTUS plodding in the footsteps of Adams(s), Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, Taft, Hoover, Jimmy Carter and Bush the Elder.
Right now just glad Joe Biden in President, for the sake of Ukraine, Europe (including UK), the USA and the world.
I don't expect you to substantiate your ridiculous obsession that Ukraine is at fault for Minsk despite all evidence to the contrary, but do you care to substantiate your idea Ukraine won't be able to repel Russia out of Ukraine considering they've already managed to do so across the whole of the North?
But I see Johnson is STILL LYING with his risible claim that he only attended his wife’s party to conduct a job interview.
It’s possible this gets him off another FPN (as who can say otherwise?), but the casualty is of course the public, who suffer a loss of dignity in being expected to accept this horse-shit.
Note to mouthbreathers: to outline this scenario is not the same thing as wanting it. get your mum to explain.
As May 9th approaches, when Putin needs a rousing message for his public, I wonder which of the following is going to be closer to the mark -
(i) "The Donbass is denazified and joined to Crimea. Russian Ukraine has been restored and the special military operation is successful and complete. Rejoice in that news."
(ii) "The special military operation in Ukraine has been hampered by America and its satellites. Ignoring all warnings they have interfered on the side of the Nazis and we have no choice but to respond. We did not want war but we are ready. Victory will be ours."
ie a de-escalation or an escalation?
Maybe something else, who knows, but these are the bookends, I reckon. And I think I'd rather hear (i) than (ii). Which I mean purely literally. I'd rather *hear* that.
I would just say that the motivations that we might think rational (avoid too many Russian deaths; maintain Russian living standards; maintain various assets in the West) may be less important to Putin and his mafia than simply maintaining his and their position in the kleptocracy.
QC advising Sue Gray has loathed Boris for years
I am usually a stickler for the Rules of Natural Justice, but this time: good on him.
Angus Robertson, the Scottish constitution secretary, faced opposition accusations he had presided over a “disastrous” process after he told MSPs on Thursday nearly a quarter of householders had not yet submitted returns, with the original deadline in three days.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/scottish-census-deadline-extended-due-to-lack-of-responses
Ben Celcius 💂🇬🇧🤝🇺🇦💂♂️
@BernardoCelcius
Replying to
@general_ben
Last time i was with a Finnish officer I asked him about NATO. He just laughed and said "what's the point, Russia would never get through Finland anyway!"
===
So maybe Sweden has no point joining NATO in that case.
Thus is realpolitik.
It’s really Ukraine’s judgement as to their willingness to accept such plebiscites. For as long as they won’t, it’s our job to support them.
"German energy giant Uniper gives in to Russian rouble demand"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61257846
Germany (though not all Germans) is letting the side down. Collaborationism seems to run deep.
Take manpower: they *had* 900,000 active personnel and 2,000,000 reserves.
The US has 1,400,000 active personnel and 840,000 reserves.
Even if 'reserves' are cheaper to run, then there's a massive disparity in the amount you can pay them if you also want to invest in equipment. And to be effective, you need to spend money on reserves, or their skills wither.
They've spread themselves mightily thin. They are trying to do everything, and perhaps they've ended up doing little well. Why do they need an aircraft carrier? Do they really need cruisers? They have a massive land area, and whilst their SSBN equivalents perform a valuable strategic role, what role does the rest of their navy fulfil?
Just say it will be Russian territory, illegally held, without any of the moral b/s of a corrupt plebiscite.
Don't hide behind a vote which you know will be b/s.
* Potus is disqualified because it's such a here today, gone tomorrow deal even with 2 terms. Xi is too inscrutable to count.
So, no, I'm not calling you an appeaser.
What's that you got, Vlad? Roubles?
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Have you noticed something?
This simplistic analysis of beginning & escalating military conflicts always starts with the hope of a quick, precise and relatively bloodless solution. Not years and years of a bloody great fucking war with a huge death toll.
But, that is what wars are like.
They don't go as expected and very quickly get out of hand. That is where this war is heading, because all wars do. Increasing involvement of NATO will end with a series of tit for tat 'tactical' nuclear strikes.
This collective insanity has got to end. Way, way too many people are infected by this thirst for a war, ignoring the fact that wars are always, always much more deadly than initial expectations.
And yet on pb.com, we have an almost absolute majority of posters endlessly war-mongering, wanting, demanding, baying for an escalation to this.
(And no surprise, the feckin LibDems are the most bloodthirsty).
An escalation will end with many, many more deaths than anyone thinks.
I am not sure why, but perhaps you don’t read well.
I am merely suggesting what I think is the most likely outcome, and perhaps further, thinking about where Western strategist think this might “land”.
Wouldn't you?
Anyway, YBarddCwsc seems to be worried about Russia using them on us, so I'm not sure what advantage France would have.
If it is just possession of their own deterrent that worries you, then perhaps we should invade Ireland? They don't have any nukes. We once "owned" it as part of an empire. We could have a worry about English speakers, after all if they speak English they must be, well, British.
Even if the US objected and sent them arms, they'd have to let us have an extra piece in the end. Just in case.
Of course it is a nonsense, but no more of a nonsense than the current situation.
Russia must lose.
Apologies if you are *not* in favour of such plebiscites.
This subthread is such a beautiful illustration of his mode of thought I am going to save it as a case study. He gets from "predict" to "advocate" in five moves; it's like a Go master toying with a novice.
Not just diminishing his actual achievements, most notably successfully vax procurement & distribution under his watch.
And if not diminishing, then shadowing & clouding his initial leadership in helping rally support, and supply critical weaponry, intelligence & logistics to Ukraine. Including the boost & support the Prime Minister of the UK gave to the President of Ukraine when Zelensky & the Ukrainians really needed it.
Comedy, farce, tragedy, pathos, bathos.
NOT a high point for British politics.
But more entertaining even, than stuffing a dozen drunken Bullingtonians into a big sack, and tossing it into the Thames?
I don’t know about his claim that Ukraine has not delivered on Minsk (also made by Nick Palmer earlier). Regardless of that, Putin is 100% to blame.
I think we do have to look at the likely outcomes, and this should influence Western strategy.
Depose Putin? Lovely, but not a war aim.
A retreat to pre-14 borders? I think it unlikely.
You are left with some kind of territorial accommodation, and presumably some kind of security guarantee to avoid Putin trying this on again.
I would love Ukraine to utterly expel Russia, even from Crimea, I just can’t see it right now.