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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
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?
As far as I can see, you only said you thought it was most likely. This isn't the same as advocating it, which Поэт-лауреат was doing.
So, no, I'm not calling you an appeaser.
I can’t read Cyrillic, but I guess you mean @YBarddCwsc. I think he is talking a lot of sense.
Not when he advocates appeasing Putin with rigged joke plebiscites, he isn't. Because the inevitable consequence is he'll take another bite out of Ukraine and back it up with another rigged joke plebiscite. And keep doing it until he has all of Ukraine. And then he'll look towards the Baltics.
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.
Nobody is calling for it.
I am in favour of them to the extent that it may be the compromise acceptable to Russia and Ukraine, even if personally I highly doubt the integrity of such plebiscites.
A suggestion; stop thinking everyone is “playing into Russia’s hands”.
"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.
"In nineteen minutes, this area's gonna be a cloud of vapour the size of the Donbass!"
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
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?
As far as I can see, you only said you thought it was most likely. This isn't the same as advocating it, which Поэт-лауреат was doing.
So, no, I'm not calling you an appeaser.
I can’t read Cyrillic, but I guess you mean @YBarddCwsc. I think he is talking a lot of sense.
Not when he advocates appeasing Putin with rigged joke plebiscites, he isn't. Because the inevitable consequence is he'll take another bite out of Ukraine and back it up with another rigged joke plebiscite. And keep doing it until he has all of Ukraine. And then he'll look towards the Baltics.
I am not speaking for him, and I think some of his premises ARE contestable, but surely he is correct to look for some like of outcome between Russia occupying the Isle of Wight, and conversely NATO invading Vladivostock.
Apologies for the facetiousness.
Regarding the “he’ll keep doing it” point, we absolutely, absolutely need a security guarantee around Ukraine’s integrity. We cannot overlook this like we have done previous Russian expeditions.
If we cannot get that, then yes we must keep the fight going - for years if necessary.
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?
As far as I can see, you only said you thought it was most likely. This isn't the same as advocating it, which Поэт-лауреат was doing.
So, no, I'm not calling you an appeaser.
I can’t read Cyrillic, but I guess you mean @YBarddCwsc. I think he is talking a lot of sense.
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.
If someone believes that Ukraine has 'not delivered' on Minsk II, then they should perhaps detail *why* they think it has not delivered - and also state whether they think Russia has any hand in the non-delivery.
"And at its heart is a simple problem – Ukraine sees Minsk-2 as a means to restore its sovereignty, but Russia views it as a tool with which to cripple Ukraine’s sovereignty."
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?
You have the UN run it.
Not that it will be too difficult a decision:
Do you want to be part of the country with $1trn of aid and international goodwill on the way, or do you prefer to be part of the country with $1trn of sanctions and restrictions that will remain in place until Ukraine is rebuilt?
"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.
Russia must lose.
The analogy of Britain invading a near neighbour like Ireland (or Scotland in the past) is not a bad one. That is in fact exactly what happened in the past, and the reason was usually that a third power was using that country to gain a strategical advantage against Britain. So it was felt that there was an existential threat.
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But it's also an unfortunate truth that there is no independent future for Ukraine, given its geostrategical significance in the fight between the West and Russia.
That was proven when the US sponsored the Maidan protests that unseated the pro-Russian President, and a recording of Victoria Nuland (the famous 'F*** the EU' tape) documents a frank discussion where she chooses who will be the next Ukrainian President.
If it remains a single country, Ukraine will either be a US-sponsored thorn in Russia's side, with the appurtenances of one of Liz Truss's vibrant democracies, but very little control over anything, or it will be a Russian satellite, controlled far more visibly and with much less finesse, by Russia. It cannot be other than these two scenarios.
The first scenario is clearly the one that is favoured by more Ukrainians, and therefore deserves to happen, and is likelier to happen, but that does leave the issue of a large Russian minority, whose position within that set up looks precarious. The fact that the Ukrainians have been parading around an opposition leader (of a pro-Russian party) in shackles is not encouraging in this regard. So perhaps actually 'pushing Putin out of Ukraine' is not the best outcome either.
The best option to me seems to be what someone here suggested not long ago, to 'lease' these areas to Putin, not officially ceding them to Russia. He gets his buffer from NATO encroachment, the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine get their protector, Ukraine gets an income, and above all the fighting stops. To get there though, Ukraine's sponsors, and Russia's allies, all need to use their influence to push peace talks, not continued war.
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.
Nobody is calling for it.
I am in favour of them to the extent that it may be the compromise acceptable to Russia and Ukraine, even if personally I highly doubt the integrity of such plebiscites.
A suggestion; stop thinking everyone is “playing into Russia’s hands”.
I don't think that (and have never said so), and apologies.
As an aside, the links I just posted showed how the plebiscites were a major sticking point in Minsk II. *If* ones were to be given, they will have to try to get around those sticking points. It's not as easy as just holding a vote.
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
Fucking right it's aggressive, but it isn't stupid: it is accurately nailing the pointless stupidity of the post to which it is replying. You can't go hectoring other posters as to what you think they "should perhaps make clear" and not expect a fairly robust critique of your own posts.
Err, am I misreading this, is this saying that a/the general of the army is now dead?
P.S. do we know how many of each rank there where to start?
No. It was announced today that Gerasimov has been sent by Putin to none other than Izyum to sort out the situation there. The prediction is that his life expectancy is now very short.
So this is some humourous getting ahead of himself.
@ Big Rich. The original estimate was that there were 20 total generals in the theatre of operations at the outset. Some of those would have been in Russia and Belarus but still close to the action.
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
Fucking right it's aggressive, but it isn't stupid: it is accurately nailing the pointless stupidity of the post to which it is replying. You can't go hectoring other posters as to what you think they "should perhaps make clear" and not expect a fairly robust critique of your own posts.
'Hectoring'?
coming from you, that's a bit rich.
But in the meantime, I will respond to your post in the manner it deserves.
"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.
None of us want to see them used.
But what are you prepared to allow in order to avoid it?
It has to be a solid red line, otherwise it is meaningless.
Err, am I misreading this, is this saying that a/the general of the army is now dead?
P.S. do we know how many of each rank there where to start?
No. It was announced today that Gerasimov has been sent by Putin to none other than Izyum to sort out the situation there. The prediction is that his life expectancy is now very short.
So this is some humourous getting ahead of himself.
Is this some kind of punishment? He must know that all the generals he's sent to the actual front have ended up quite dead.
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.
Any plebiscite deal, and I agree it is possible one may be part of the formal settlement, should include following: 1. Votes for displaced. 2. UN or other suitable international supervision including over campaigns, voter registration, voting and counting. 3. International peace keeping force can use force against any attempts to intimidate. 4. A breathing space without any conflict before the vote.
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
I've just come round from a general anaesthetic after a knee operation - this argument is still going on?
4 fighter planes just flew over our house. Never seen that before*
If I get evaporated soon, it’s being nice knowing you. Well, some of you.
(*fighters common as muck in Scotland. Unheard of in this part of Sweden.)
Pleased to see your PM is having no truck with referendums and such bollocks over NATO membership. Good for her. No "let's take the 350m kroner a week we would have sent to NATO and get ourselves an NHS" nonsense.
Do you have a view on this William? Freezing of assets is one thing - actually appropriating them is surely something different?
Speaking for myself, not William: I'm very wary of seizing oligarch's money at the moment. They are still rich and powerful men, and would like to have long lives in which to spend that money. The sanctions are a stick. The carrot may be them getting most of that money back if Russia meets whatever obligations it has internationally at the end of this war.
IMO the time to seize oligarch's money is after the war is over, preferably through a proper legal process that was in place before the war.
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
I've just come round from a general anaesthetic after a knee operation - this argument is still going on?
Perhaps you should make it clear that you are not in favour of general anaesthetics.
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
I've just come round from a general anaesthetic after a knee operation - this argument is still going on?
People keep arriving and giving just one more little squirt of lighter fluid to the BBQ
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
I've just come round from a general anaesthetic after a knee operation - this argument is still going on?
"Nurse, put him under again. We haven't finished our argument yet...."
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.
It’s impressive how in tune the UK government have been with the pentagon all the way through. The first the world heard the pentagon killed Polands planes idea was from Ben. UK government must be FaceTiming straight into Pentagon intravenously, and Pentagon happy for UK ministers to be their Spokesperson
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
Fucking right it's aggressive, but it isn't stupid: it is accurately nailing the pointless stupidity of the post to which it is replying. You can't go hectoring other posters as to what you think they "should perhaps make clear" and not expect a fairly robust critique of your own posts.
'Hectoring'?
coming from you, that's a bit rich.
But in the meantime, I will respond to your post in the manner it deserves.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
I don't think your time is profitably spent on here. are you not neglecting the Little 'Un?
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
I've just come round from a general anaesthetic after a knee operation - this argument is still going on?
I've been out for a lot of the day and missed loads of posts....
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.
The pretending to be about to supply mig fighters was a sly move (convincingly played as farce), it kind of set supplying fighter jets as the line not to be crossed, making everything up to that ok.
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
Fucking right it's aggressive, but it isn't stupid: it is accurately nailing the pointless stupidity of the post to which it is replying. You can't go hectoring other posters as to what you think they "should perhaps make clear" and not expect a fairly robust critique of your own posts.
'Hectoring'?
coming from you, that's a bit rich.
But in the meantime, I will respond to your post in the manner it deserves.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
I don't think your time is profitably spent on here. are you not neglecting the Little 'Un?
That's a nasty comment, even from you. And to be clear: if course I'm not. Mrs J is with him.
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
I've just come round from a general anaesthetic after a knee operation - this argument is still going on?
So did they fix your trick knee - or give you one?
My advice: stay off of your pogo stick, hire a sedan chair and get back to kicking ass ASAP.
Err, am I misreading this, is this saying that a/the general of the army is now dead?
P.S. do we know how many of each rank there where to start?
No. It was announced today that Gerasimov has been sent by Putin to none other than Izyum to sort out the situation there. The prediction is that his life expectancy is now very short.
So this is some humourous getting ahead of himself.
I wants to make your flesh creep part 94
A The General Staff, not the President, has the Russian nuclear launch codes, and uses them on the President's instructions to either 1. send launch instructions to individual launch commanders or 2. using the Perimetr system, automatically launch them themselves, bypassing the commanders.
B Gerasimov is Chief of the General Staff.
C Presumably he delegates his responsibvility when out of the country, and he definitely will if he's dead.
D So if Putin has sent him to Izyum, either this is immaterial because Putin has no intention in the world to instruct anyone to launch anything
E Or Putin wants someone junior to Gerasimov to be on the other end of the hot line for the next week or so, for reasons we can only guess at
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.
It’s impressive how in tune the UK government have been with the pentagon all the way through. The first the world heard the pentagon killed Polands planes idea was from Ben. UK government must be FaceTiming straight into Pentagon intravenously, and Pentagon happy for UK ministers to be their Spokesperson
When I was in the UK delegation to the CW negotiations in Geneva, we used to joke that we heard the US delegation's instructions before even the Pentagon heard them.
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
I've just come round from a general anaesthetic after a knee operation - this argument is still going on?
Perhaps you should make it clear that you are not in favour of general anaesthetics.
hope op went well and speedy recovery.
Thanks. It did. I came round laughing - I had honestly forgotten what it felt like not to be in pain. Now for a few days with my feet up watching the snooker :-)
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
"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.
Russia must lose.
The analogy of Britain invading a near neighbour like Ireland (or Scotland in the past) is not a bad one. That is in fact exactly what happened in the past, and the reason was usually that a third power was using that country to gain a strategical advantage against Britain. So it was felt that there was an existential threat.
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But
Basterds, two faced, dupltituse, selfish, basterds.
I think the story is slightly more nuanced than that, and that the practice is more widespread than just this reported case. Essentially, AIUI, the companies/countries are paying in dollars or euros, but they are being forced to buy Russian energy from Gazprom solely through the Gazprom bank, and the bank is the one doing the exchange of those currencies into rubles.
The original sin in my view is the purchase of the energy from Russia. The mechanisms of when and by whom the currency is converted is for the birds AFAIAC.
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
"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.
Russia must lose.
The analogy of Britain invading a near neighbour like Ireland (or Scotland in the past) is not a bad one. That is in fact exactly what happened in the past, and the reason was usually that a third power was using that country to gain a strategical advantage against Britain. So it was felt that there was an existential threat.
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But it's also an unfortunate truth that there is no independent future for Ukraine, given its geostrategical significance in the fight between the West and Russia.
That was proven when the US sponsored the Maidan protests that unseated the pro-Russian President, and a recording of Victoria Nuland (the famous 'F*** the EU' tape) documents a frank discussion where she chooses who will be the next Ukrainian President.
If it remains a single country, Ukraine will either be a US-sponsored thorn in Russia's side, with the appurtenances of one of Liz Truss's vibrant democracies, but very little control over anything, or it will be a Russian satellite, controlled far more visibly and with much less finesse, by Russia. It cannot be other than these two scenarios.
The first scenario is clearly the one that is favoured by more Ukrainians, and therefore deserves to happen, and is likelier to happen, but that does leave the issue of a large Russian minority, whose position within that set up looks precarious. The fact that the Ukrainians have been parading around an opposition leader (of a pro-Russian party) in shackles is not encouraging in this regard. So perhaps actually 'pushing Putin out of Ukraine' is not the best outcome either.
The best option to me seems to be what someone here suggested not long ago, to 'lease' these areas to Putin, not officially ceding them to Russia. He gets his buffer from NATO encroachment, the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine get their protector, Ukraine gets an income, and above all the fighting stops. To get there though, Ukraine's sponsors, and Russia's allies, all need to use their influence to push peace talks, not continued war.
Why?
All of the areas of Ukraine, including the 'Russian' speaking ones, voted for an independent Ukraine in the referendum they held.
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
RAF Valley is an active air base and we hear the aircraft regularly
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
I've just come round from a general anaesthetic after a knee operation - this argument is still going on?
So did they fix your trick knee - or give you one?
My advice: stay off of your pogo stick, hire a sedan chair and get back to kicking ass ASAP.
Thanks SSI - it wasn't a new knee, just a tidying up of the existing one with some keyhole surgery.
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.
Fuck, here's another one. If I predict the heat death of the universe, will I get a bossy little note from you requesting I make it clear that I am not in favour of that outcome? Predict. Advocate. Not the same. Think. Want. Different things.
And here's another of your aggressive, stupid and pointless posts.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
I've just come round from a general anaesthetic after a knee operation - this argument is still going on?
So did they fix your trick knee - or give you one?
My advice: stay off of your pogo stick, hire a sedan chair and get back to kicking ass ASAP.
Thanks SSI - it wasn't a new knee, just a tidying up of the existing one with some keyhole surgery.
One simply cannot abide a scruffy knee. I'm glad you've had it seen to.
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
RAF Valley is an active air base and we hear the aircraft regularly
There are, as I understand it, specific low flying areas for the RAF etc over the UK, and others eg hospitals and towns, where it is banned. It can also be banned for specific days/times, e.g. a funeral in a village on the route (some relatives did this and the RAF put a block on it - some grief when a pair of planes ignored this).
It sounds (no pun intended) as if some pilots might have messed up and weren't where they should have been.
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
RAF Valley is an active air base and we hear the aircraft regularly
There are, as I understand it, specific low flying areas for the RAF etc over the UK, and others eg hospitals and towns, where it is banned. It can also be banned for specific days/times, e.g. a funeral in a village on the route (some relatives did this and the RAF put a block on it - some grief when a pair of planes ignored this).
It sounds (no pun intended) as if some pilots might have messed up and weren't where they should have been.
I am not sure as they fly over our house regularly and recently there has been much more activity
"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.
Russia must lose.
The analogy of Britain invading a near neighbour like Ireland (or Scotland in the past) is not a bad one. That is in fact exactly what happened in the past, and the reason was usually that a third power was using that country to gain a strategical advantage against Britain. So it was felt that there was an existential threat.
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But it's also an unfortunate truth that there is no independent future for Ukraine, given its geostrategical significance in the fight between the West and Russia.
That was proven when the US sponsored the Maidan protests that unseated the pro-Russian President, and a recording of Victoria Nuland (the famous 'F*** the EU' tape) documents a frank discussion where she chooses who will be the next Ukrainian President.
If it remains a single country, Ukraine will either be a US-sponsored thorn in Russia's side, with the appurtenances of one of Liz Truss's vibrant democracies, but very little control over anything, or it will be a Russian satellite, controlled far more visibly and with much less finesse, by Russia. It cannot be other than these two scenarios.
The first scenario is clearly the one that is favoured by more Ukrainians, and therefore deserves to happen, and is likelier to happen, but that does leave the issue of a large Russian minority, whose position within that set up looks precarious. The fact that the Ukrainians have been parading around an opposition leader (of a pro-Russian party) in shackles is not encouraging in this regard. So perhaps actually 'pushing Putin out of Ukraine' is not the best outcome either.
The best option to me seems to be what someone here suggested not long ago, to 'lease' these areas to Putin, not officially ceding them to Russia. He gets his buffer from NATO encroachment, the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine get their protector, Ukraine gets an income, and above all the fighting stops. To get there though, Ukraine's sponsors, and Russia's allies, all need to use their influence to push peace talks, not continued war.
Why?
All of the areas of Ukraine, including the 'Russian' speaking ones, voted for an independent Ukraine in the referendum they held.
ISTM that our role is to support the elected Ukrainian Government.
And they know that Putin's forces rolled into town with death lists, detention lists, and all the other appurtenances of a Stalinist playbook.
Yes, in 1991. A great deal of water has passed under the bridge since, and I am not sure that Ukraine can get back to that, given the utter hatred that now exists between the two factions.
Basterds, two faced, dupltituse, selfish, basterds.
I think the story is slightly more nuanced than that, and that the practice is more widespread than just this reported case. Essentially, AIUI, the companies/countries are paying in dollars or euros, but they are being forced to buy Russian energy from Gazprom solely through the Gazprom bank, and the bank is the one doing the exchange of those currencies into rubles.
The original sin in my view is the purchase of the energy from Russia. The mechanisms of when and by whom the currency is converted is for the birds AFAIAC.
Hmm, the original sin has been compounded by Germany and other European countries feeding the Russian war machine with cash and completely undermining any sanctions.
Ultimately the German government has decided that "never again" is just bullshit and that the mass rape, murder and violation of Ukrainian civilians is an acceptable cost of doing business to keep their factories open.
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.
It’s impressive how in tune the UK government have been with the pentagon all the way through. The first the world heard the pentagon killed Polands planes idea was from Ben. UK government must be FaceTiming straight into Pentagon intravenously, and Pentagon happy for UK ministers to be their Spokesperson
Given that we didn't elect the Pentagon, I'm not sure how impressed we should be.
The lewd comments attributed to the Labour MP were apparently calling the co-worker a secret weapon because men wanted to sleep with her .
Is this banter that should be laughed at ? Personally I don’t find this offensive . Am I alone with this view ?
Unfortunately, the battle was lost long ago. The rule is now, if a member of a protected group says they are offended, the offender can be cancelled.
If a female worker called a male colleague the same would we even have heard of this? Attractiveness is nothing to be ashamed of . Indeed I’d be happy if so many people wanted to sleep with me ! It would be interesting to get the perspective of female members in here .
I wouldn't want to be spoken about in that way by a boss or colleague. And I certainly would not speak about a male colleague in such a way.
Describing someone as attractive or offering a compliment is one thing - though it needs a certain amount of sensitivity and good manners not to stray over the line. But describing someone in a way that implies that a female colleague is some sort of tart or is viewed as such by others is not complimentary at all. And not professional either.
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
RAF Valley is an active air base and we hear the aircraft regularly
There are, as I understand it, specific low flying areas for the RAF etc over the UK, and others eg hospitals and towns, where it is banned. It can also be banned for specific days/times, e.g. a funeral in a village on the route (some relatives did this and the RAF put a block on it - some grief when a pair of planes ignored this).
It sounds (no pun intended) as if some pilots might have messed up and weren't where they should have been.
Camping at Lossiemouth on the Moray Coast Trail was not great for a good night's sleep. Apparently the whole of NATO decided to do a big overnight exercise.
"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.
Russia must lose.
The analogy of Britain invading a near neighbour like Ireland (or Scotland in the past) is not a bad one. That is in fact exactly what happened in the past, and the reason was usually that a third power was using that country to gain a strategical advantage against Britain. So it was felt that there was an existential threat.
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But it's also an unfortunate truth that there is no independent future for Ukraine, given its geostrategical significance in the fight between the West and Russia.
That was proven when the US sponsored the Maidan protests that unseated the pro-Russian President, and a recording of Victoria Nuland (the famous 'F*** the EU' tape) documents a frank discussion where she chooses who will be the next Ukrainian President.
If it remains a single country, Ukraine will either be a US-sponsored thorn in Russia's side, with the appurtenances of one of Liz Truss's vibrant democracies, but very little control over anything, or it will be a Russian satellite, controlled far more visibly and with much less finesse, by Russia. It cannot be other than these two scenarios.
The first scenario is clearly the one that is favoured by more Ukrainians, and therefore deserves to happen, and is likelier to happen, but that does leave the issue of a large Russian minority, whose position within that set up looks precarious. The fact that the Ukrainians have been parading around an opposition leader (of a pro-Russian party) in shackles is not encouraging in this regard. So perhaps actually 'pushing Putin out of Ukraine' is not the best outcome either.
The best option to me seems to be what someone here suggested not long ago, to 'lease' these areas to Putin, not officially ceding them to Russia. He gets his buffer from NATO encroachment, the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine get their protector, Ukraine gets an income, and above all the fighting stops. To get there though, Ukraine's sponsors, and Russia's allies, all need to use their influence to push peace talks, not continued war.
I’m not selling my people into slavery; I’m just renting them out
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
RAF Valley is an active air base and we hear the aircraft regularly
There are, as I understand it, specific low flying areas for the RAF etc over the UK, and others eg hospitals and towns, where it is banned. It can also be banned for specific days/times, e.g. a funeral in a village on the route (some relatives did this and the RAF put a block on it - some grief when a pair of planes ignored this).
It sounds (no pun intended) as if some pilots might have messed up and weren't where they should have been.
I am not sure as they fly over our house regularly and recently there has been much more activity
Indeed I heard one 20 minutes ago
Depends how low; I'm thinking of the really low flying, down to 250 or 100 feet depending on type. Part of the problem is there is no real warning till you get this huge noise overhead. A real issue for horse riders, chicken farmers, shepherds.
It's not always too clear from MoD stuff but it looks as if low flying is 2000 feet above grouind level or less. So there could well be plenty of traffic over you from Valley and the bay ranges to the south, and it wouldn't count as low flying, though it's noticeable and noisy enough. .
I am usually a stickler for the Rules of Natural Justice, but this time: good on him.
Anyone having to looking into Boris is going to end up loathing him, so it’s a kind of catch-22.
I'm interested that people think that transparent bias is acceptable in an independent enquiry.
The first thing a professional QC would do is refuse the position, surely?
Advising an inquiry is different from conducting it. Plus I wouldn't hang a dog on Guido's evidence
The evidence is the guy's public twitter feed.
OK.
Still not terribly excited. I mean every adult in the country thinks Johnson is a flsoj, or is the second coming of w Churchill, so you're gonna get bias. Plus he is not in a quasi judicial capacity, just advising. Plus phatboi's initial choice was someone who was at the parties, so he can't complain too loudly about bias
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
RAF Valley is an active air base and we hear the aircraft regularly
There are, as I understand it, specific low flying areas for the RAF etc over the UK, and others eg hospitals and towns, where it is banned. It can also be banned for specific days/times, e.g. a funeral in a village on the route (some relatives did this and the RAF put a block on it - some grief when a pair of planes ignored this).
It sounds (no pun intended) as if some pilots might have messed up and weren't where they should have been.
Camping at Lossiemouth on the Moray Coast Trail was not great for a good night's sleep. Apparently the whole of NATO decided to do a big overnight exercise.
Nimrod engine testing was pretty thunderous, too.
Yes, the area around a mil airfield is necessarily low flying anyway ... and in any case "low flying" is 250' or less AGL. But Nimrods, and Tornado F3s on reheat ...
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
RAF Valley is an active air base and we hear the aircraft regularly
There are, as I understand it, specific low flying areas for the RAF etc over the UK, and others eg hospitals and towns, where it is banned. It can also be banned for specific days/times, e.g. a funeral in a village on the route (some relatives did this and the RAF put a block on it - some grief when a pair of planes ignored this).
It sounds (no pun intended) as if some pilots might have messed up and weren't where they should have been.
Camping at Lossiemouth on the Moray Coast Trail was not great for a good night's sleep. Apparently the whole of NATO decided to do a big overnight exercise.
Nimrod engine testing was pretty thunderous, too.
My wife and her family lived in Stotfield Road, Lossiemouth near the golf course and the constant roar of aircraft was part of the daily scene
I once was playing on the course when a Vulcan took off and stood on its tail immediately above us and the noise was unbelievable and I felt I was bring drilled into the green. Indeed I missed my birdie putt.
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?
As far as I can see, you only said you thought it was most likely. This isn't the same as advocating it, which Поэт-лауреат was doing.
So, no, I'm not calling you an appeaser.
I can’t read Cyrillic, but I guess you mean @YBarddCwsc. I think he is talking a lot of sense.
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.
From what I've heard out of Ukraine the anger at Russia for the invasion, and the strength of the defiance is such that it would take a lot of fighting and a lot of dying for the Ukrainians to accept the permanent loss of any of their territory. This was true before the 24th February invasion, and is even more true today.
This is the main reason that Minsk II wasn't implemented - any time a Ukrainian leader made moves to do so, the Ukrainian people made sure they knew that they weren't having it.
Knowing this about the Ukrainian people, then the provision of Western weaponry is the path to minimise suffering, as it maximises the probability of a Ukrainian victory, reduces the duration of a war, and saves many Ukrainian citizens from extended Russian occupation.
I hope that the $33bn request for funding for Ukraine is approved rapidly, and that the UK continues to provide as much support as we are able.
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
Well indeed. Someone needs to tell Mr Williams MP that flying planes is what the Air Forces do, and someone needs to get the message to Ukranian refugees that any planes they might hear are good guys training to fight the big bear.
That said, 250’ over a town is not normal at all, and I doubt that was the case. Over the hills yes they go that low.
Pilots follow what’s called the 500 foot rule, which means you never fly within 500’ of any people or structures. Mil are exempt in certain circumstances but are generally respectful.
"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.
Russia must lose.
The analogy of Britain invading a near neighbour like Ireland (or Scotland in the past) is not a bad one. That is in fact exactly what happened in the past, and the reason was usually that a third power was using that country to gain a strategical advantage against Britain. So it was felt that there was an existential threat.
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But it's also an unfortunate truth that there is no independent future for Ukraine, given its geostrategical significance in the fight between the West and Russia.
That was proven when the US sponsored the Maidan protests that unseated the pro-Russian President, and a recording of Victoria Nuland (the famous 'F*** the EU' tape) documents a frank discussion where she chooses who will be the next Ukrainian President.
If it remains a single country, Ukraine will either be a US-sponsored thorn in Russia's side, with the appurtenances of one of Liz Truss's vibrant democracies, but very little control over anything, or it will be a Russian satellite, controlled far more visibly and with much less finesse, by Russia. It cannot be other than these two scenarios.
The first scenario is clearly the one that is favoured by more Ukrainians, and therefore deserves to happen, and is likelier to happen, but that does leave the issue of a large Russian minority, whose position within that set up looks precarious. The fact that the Ukrainians have been parading around an opposition leader (of a pro-Russian party) in shackles is not encouraging in this regard. So perhaps actually 'pushing Putin out of Ukraine' is not the best outcome either.
The best option to me seems to be what someone here suggested not long ago, to 'lease' these areas to Putin, not officially ceding them to Russia. He gets his buffer from NATO encroachment, the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine get their protector, Ukraine gets an income, and above all the fighting stops. To get there though, Ukraine's sponsors, and Russia's allies, all need to use their influence to push peace talks, not continued war.
I’m not selling my people into slavery; I’m just renting them out
The consent of the populations of these areas would need to be sought in the ways discussed here.
"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.
Russia must lose.
The analogy of Britain invading a near neighbour like Ireland (or Scotland in the past) is not a bad one. That is in fact exactly what happened in the past, and the reason was usually that a third power was using that country to gain a strategical advantage against Britain. So it was felt that there was an existential threat.
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But it's also an unfortunate truth that there is no independent future for Ukraine, given its geostrategical significance in the fight between the West and Russia.
That was proven when the US sponsored the Maidan protests that unseated the pro-Russian President, and a recording of Victoria Nuland (the famous 'F*** the EU' tape) documents a frank discussion where she chooses who will be the next Ukrainian President.
If it remains a single country, Ukraine will either be a US-sponsored thorn in Russia's side, with the appurtenances of one of Liz Truss's vibrant democracies, but very little control over anything, or it will be a Russian satellite, controlled far more visibly and with much less finesse, by Russia. It cannot be other than these two scenarios.
The first scenario is clearly the one that is favoured by more Ukrainians, and therefore deserves to happen, and is likelier to happen, but that does leave the issue of a large Russian minority, whose position within that set up looks precarious. The fact that the Ukrainians have been parading around an opposition leader (of a pro-Russian party) in shackles is not encouraging in this regard. So perhaps actually 'pushing Putin out of Ukraine' is not the best outcome either.
The best option to me seems to be what someone here suggested not long ago, to 'lease' these areas to Putin, not officially ceding them to Russia. He gets his buffer from NATO encroachment, the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine get their protector, Ukraine gets an income, and above all the fighting stops. To get there though, Ukraine's sponsors, and Russia's allies, all need to use their influence to push peace talks, not continued war.
Picking up your comment on the alleged 'precarious' nature of the large Russian minority in a post-war Ukraine.
What information we have says that Putin has united the Russian and Ukrainian speaking populations into patriotic support for Ukraine.
Mariupol, for example, is (was) predominately Russian speaking.
Were Russia to succeed, it would not surprise me if Putin treated the Russian-speaking Ukrainians like Stalin treated surviving Russian POWs in 1945 - shoot them, or off to the Gulag / Labour Camp in Siberia with the traitors.
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
RAF Valley is an active air base and we hear the aircraft regularly
There are, as I understand it, specific low flying areas for the RAF etc over the UK, and others eg hospitals and towns, where it is banned. It can also be banned for specific days/times, e.g. a funeral in a village on the route (some relatives did this and the RAF put a block on it - some grief when a pair of planes ignored this).
It sounds (no pun intended) as if some pilots might have messed up and weren't where they should have been.
I am not sure as they fly over our house regularly and recently there has been much more activity
Indeed I heard one 20 minutes ago
Depends how low; I'm thinking of the really low flying, down to 250 or 100 feet depending on type. Part of the problem is there is no real warning till you get this huge noise overhead. A real issue for horse riders, chicken farmers, shepherds.
It's not always too clear from MoD stuff but it looks as if low flying is 2000 feet above grouind level or less. So there could well be plenty of traffic over you from Valley and the bay ranges to the south, and it wouldn't count as low flying, though it's noticeable and noisy enough. .
Basterds, two faced, dupltituse, selfish, basterds.
I think the story is slightly more nuanced than that, and that the practice is more widespread than just this reported case. Essentially, AIUI, the companies/countries are paying in dollars or euros, but they are being forced to buy Russian energy from Gazprom solely through the Gazprom bank, and the bank is the one doing the exchange of those currencies into rubles.
The original sin in my view is the purchase of the energy from Russia. The mechanisms of when and by whom the currency is converted is for the birds AFAIAC.
Hmm, the original sin has been compounded by Germany and other European countries feeding the Russian war machine with cash and completely undermining any sanctions.
Ultimately the German government has decided that "never again" is just bullshit and that the mass rape, murder and violation of Ukrainian civilians is an acceptable cost of doing business to keep their factories open.
I think we're saying much the same thing. The original sin is that the Germans are funding the genocide in Ukraine because their personal comfort and 2% of GDP is more important to their politicians*.
* I believe a significant majority of the German population would make those sacrifices on behalf of 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.
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.
Russia must lose.
The analogy of Britain invading a near neighbour like Ireland (or Scotland in the past) is not a bad one. That is in fact exactly what happened in the past, and the reason was usually that a third power was using that country to gain a strategical advantage against Britain. So it was felt that there was an existential threat.
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But it's also an unfortunate truth that there is no independent future for Ukraine, given its geostrategical significance in the fight between the West and Russia.
That was proven when the US sponsored the Maidan protests that unseated the pro-Russian President, and a recording of Victoria Nuland (the famous 'F*** the EU' tape) documents a frank discussion where she chooses who will be the next Ukrainian President.
If it remains a single country, Ukraine will either be a US-sponsored thorn in Russia's side, with the appurtenances of one of Liz Truss's vibrant democracies, but very little control over anything, or it will be a Russian satellite, controlled far more visibly and with much less finesse, by Russia. It cannot be other than these two scenarios.
The first scenario is clearly the one that is favoured by more Ukrainians, and therefore deserves to happen, and is likelier to happen, but that does leave the issue of a large Russian minority, whose position within that set up looks precarious. The fact that the Ukrainians have been parading around an opposition leader (of a pro-Russian party) in shackles is not encouraging in this regard. So perhaps actually 'pushing Putin out of Ukraine' is not the best outcome either.
The best option to me seems to be what someone here suggested not long ago, to 'lease' these areas to Putin, not officially ceding them to Russia. He gets his buffer from NATO encroachment, the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine get their protector, Ukraine gets an income, and above all the fighting stops. To get there though, Ukraine's sponsors, and Russia's allies, all need to use their influence to push peace talks, not continued war.
I’m not selling my people into slavery; I’m just renting them out
The consent of the populations of these areas would need to be sought in the ways discussed here.
I’m gardening to pay for my board and lodgings for a few days. I’m staying with an old mate and he needs to get things planted in his vegetable patch. I’m on my third 16ft potato trench of the evening, and planted 200 onions earlier. I’m unsure how many beers it’s taken to perform this endeavour. Probably nearing twenty miles worth.
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
RAF Valley is an active air base and we hear the aircraft regularly
There are, as I understand it, specific low flying areas for the RAF etc over the UK, and others eg hospitals and towns, where it is banned. It can also be banned for specific days/times, e.g. a funeral in a village on the route (some relatives did this and the RAF put a block on it - some grief when a pair of planes ignored this).
It sounds (no pun intended) as if some pilots might have messed up and weren't where they should have been.
I am not sure as they fly over our house regularly and recently there has been much more activity
Indeed I heard one 20 minutes ago
Depends how low; I'm thinking of the really low flying, down to 250 or 100 feet depending on type. Part of the problem is there is no real warning till you get this huge noise overhead. A real issue for horse riders, chicken farmers, shepherds.
It's not always too clear from MoD stuff but it looks as if low flying is 2000 feet above grouind level or less. So there could well be plenty of traffic over you from Valley and the bay ranges to the south, and it wouldn't count as low flying, though it's noticeable and noisy enough. .
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?
As far as I can see, you only said you thought it was most likely. This isn't the same as advocating it, which Поэт-лауреат was doing.
So, no, I'm not calling you an appeaser.
I can’t read Cyrillic, but I guess you mean @YBarddCwsc. I think he is talking a lot of sense.
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.
From what I've heard out of Ukraine the anger at Russia for the invasion, and the strength of the defiance is such that it would take a lot of fighting and a lot of dying for the Ukrainians to accept the permanent loss of any of their territory. This was true before the 24th February invasion, and is even more true today.
This is the main reason that Minsk II wasn't implemented - any time a Ukrainian leader made moves to do so, the Ukrainian people made sure they knew that they weren't having it.
Knowing this about the Ukrainian people, then the provision of Western weaponry is the path to minimise suffering, as it maximises the probability of a Ukrainian victory, reduces the duration of a war, and saves many Ukrainian citizens from extended Russian occupation.
I hope that the $33bn request for funding for Ukraine is approved rapidly, and that the UK continues to provide as much support as we are able.
The 'realists' are continuing to have a really terrible war
"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.
Russia must lose.
The analogy of Britain invading a near neighbour like Ireland (or Scotland in the past) is not a bad one. That is in fact exactly what happened in the past, and the reason was usually that a third power was using that country to gain a strategical advantage against Britain. So it was felt that there was an existential threat.
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But it's also an unfortunate truth that there is no independent future for Ukraine, given its geostrategical significance in the fight between the West and Russia.
That was proven when the US sponsored the Maidan protests that unseated the pro-Russian President, and a recording of Victoria Nuland (the famous 'F*** the EU' tape) documents a frank discussion where she chooses who will be the next Ukrainian President.
If it remains a single country, Ukraine will either be a US-sponsored thorn in Russia's side, with the appurtenances of one of Liz Truss's vibrant democracies, but very little control over anything, or it will be a Russian satellite, controlled far more visibly and with much less finesse, by Russia. It cannot be other than these two scenarios.
The first scenario is clearly the one that is favoured by more Ukrainians, and therefore deserves to happen, and is likelier to happen, but that does leave the issue of a large Russian minority, whose position within that set up looks precarious. The fact that the Ukrainians have been parading around an opposition leader (of a pro-Russian party) in shackles is not encouraging in this regard. So perhaps actually 'pushing Putin out of Ukraine' is not the best outcome either.
The best option to me seems to be what someone here suggested not long ago, to 'lease' these areas to Putin, not officially ceding them to Russia. He gets his buffer from NATO encroachment, the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine get their protector, Ukraine gets an income, and above all the fighting stops. To get there though, Ukraine's sponsors, and Russia's allies, all need to use their influence to push peace talks, not continued war.
Why?
All of the areas of Ukraine, including the 'Russian' speaking ones, voted for an independent Ukraine in the referendum they held.
ISTM that our role is to support the elected Ukrainian Government.
And they know that Putin's forces rolled into town with death lists, detention lists, and all the other appurtenances of a Stalinist playbook.
Yes, in 1991. A great deal of water has passed under the bridge since, and I am not sure that Ukraine can get back to that, given the utter hatred that now exists between the two factions.
On the contrary, if you listen to the stories from people in Ukraine, you hear that most Russian-speakers say that they now feel more Ukrainian now than they did in the past. You would get a stronger vote for Ukrainian independence now than then.
"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.
Russia must lose.
The analogy of Britain invading a near neighbour like Ireland (or Scotland in the past) is not a bad one. That is in fact exactly what happened in the past, and the reason was usually that a third power was using that country to gain a strategical advantage against Britain. So it was felt that there was an existential threat.
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But it's also an unfortunate truth that there is no independent future for Ukraine, given its geostrategical significance in the fight between the West and Russia.
That was proven when the US sponsored the Maidan protests that unseated the pro-Russian President, and a recording of Victoria Nuland (the famous 'F*** the EU' tape) documents a frank discussion where she chooses who will be the next Ukrainian President.
If it remains a single country, Ukraine will either be a US-sponsored thorn in Russia's side, with the appurtenances of one of Liz Truss's vibrant democracies, but very little control over anything, or it will be a Russian satellite, controlled far more visibly and with much less finesse, by Russia. It cannot be other than these two scenarios.
The first scenario is clearly the one that is favoured by more Ukrainians, and therefore deserves to happen, and is likelier to happen, but that does leave the issue of a large Russian minority, whose position within that set up looks precarious. The fact that the Ukrainians have been parading around an opposition leader (of a pro-Russian party) in shackles is not encouraging in this regard. So perhaps actually 'pushing Putin out of Ukraine' is not the best outcome either.
The best option to me seems to be what someone here suggested not long ago, to 'lease' these areas to Putin, not officially ceding them to Russia. He gets his buffer from NATO encroachment, the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine get their protector, Ukraine gets an income, and above all the fighting stops. To get there though, Ukraine's sponsors, and Russia's allies, all need to use their influence to push peace talks, not continued war.
Why?
All of the areas of Ukraine, including the 'Russian' speaking ones, voted for an independent Ukraine in the referendum they held.
ISTM that our role is to support the elected Ukrainian Government.
And they know that Putin's forces rolled into town with death lists, detention lists, and all the other appurtenances of a Stalinist playbook.
Yes, in 1991. A great deal of water has passed under the bridge since, and I am not sure that Ukraine can get back to that, given the utter hatred that now exists between the two factions.
On the contrary, if you listen to the stories from people in Ukraine, you hear that most Russian-speakers say that they now feel more Ukrainian now than they did in the past. You would get a stronger vote for Ukrainian independence now than then.
Unless the Russians ship them all off to Russia before the referendum and replace them with Zs. Whatever, genocide and ethnic cleansing should not be rewarded in the name of realism.
‘Poisoned chalice’: senior Tories sought for place on committee judging PM Boris Johnson faces investigation by privileges committee into whether he lied to Commons over Partygate
...
Experienced Tory MPs with a “neutral” attitude to Boris Johnson are being sought to sit on the committee judging whether he misled parliament over Partygate, following concerns that its current membership is too aligned to the government.
Johnson is facing an investigation by the privileges committee into whether he lied to the Commons when he said he did not know about any parties in Downing Street during lockdown.
It was thought the current membership of seven – four Tories, two Labour, and one SNP MP – would conduct the investigation. However, two of the Tories are government aides and the Labour chair, Chris Bryant, has recused himself from the investigation for having already said he thought Johnson should quit.
"Sir Keir said he wanted to "get to the bottom of this"
Could have used a better expression when talking about lewd sexual innuendo.....
Talking of which:
NEW: Telegraph understands the ‘porn MP’ was not in the 2015, 2017 or 2019 intakes. Which knocks out around 120 male Tory MPs. (Per sources familiar with ID)
I really do not know what to make of this, (we hear them over our house) but then there is a war being fought in Ukraine and training US/NATO aircraft is rather important:
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
Does the USAF fly 'unnecessarily'? Presumably practising flying aircraft is considered an important part of an air force's function?
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
Well indeed. Someone needs to tell Mr Williams MP that flying planes is what the Air Forces do, and someone needs to get the message to Ukranian refugees that any planes they might hear are good guys training to fight the big bear.
That said, 250’ over a town is not normal at all, and I doubt that was the case. Over the hills yes they go that low.
Pilots follow what’s called the 500 foot rule, which means you never fly within 500’ of any people or structures. Mil are exempt in certain circumstances but are generally respectful.
The massive dog leg military aircraft take over Cambridge is a case in point.
Very, very occasionally they overfly, at great height, but it is still incredibly loud by comparison with the usual traffic pottering into Marshalls.
Comments
I am in favour of them to the extent that it may be the compromise acceptable to Russia and Ukraine, even if personally I highly doubt the integrity of such plebiscites.
A suggestion; stop thinking everyone is “playing into Russia’s hands”.
I guess this means you're choosing to try to argue with me tonight?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRcRVlpXEAQQsQj?format=png&name=900x900
Apologies for the facetiousness.
Regarding the “he’ll keep doing it” point, we absolutely, absolutely need a security guarantee around Ukraine’s integrity. We cannot overlook this like we have done previous Russian expeditions.
If we cannot get that, then yes we must keep the fight going - for years if necessary.
AIUI, Minsk II was very much a mess. This article mentions many of the problems:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/02/why-minsk-2-cannot-solve-ukraine-crisis
"And at its heart is a simple problem – Ukraine sees Minsk-2 as a means to restore its sovereignty, but Russia views it as a tool with which to cripple Ukraine’s sovereignty."
Or this one:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-18/why-minsk-accords-are-murky-path-for-ukraine-peace-quicktake
Not that it will be too difficult a decision:
Do you want to be part of the country with $1trn of aid and international goodwill on the way, or do you prefer to be part of the country with $1trn of sanctions and restrictions that will remain in place until Ukraine is rebuilt?
P.S. do we know how many of each rank there where to start?
The Russians were clearly in the wrong to invade Ukraine. But it's also an unfortunate truth that there is no independent future for Ukraine, given its geostrategical significance in the fight between the West and Russia.
That was proven when the US sponsored the Maidan protests that unseated the pro-Russian President, and a recording of Victoria Nuland (the famous 'F*** the EU' tape) documents a frank discussion where she chooses who will be the next Ukrainian President.
If it remains a single country, Ukraine will either be a US-sponsored thorn in Russia's side, with the appurtenances of one of Liz Truss's vibrant democracies, but very little control over anything, or it will be a Russian satellite, controlled far more visibly and with much less finesse, by Russia. It cannot be other than these two scenarios.
The first scenario is clearly the one that is favoured by more Ukrainians, and therefore deserves to happen, and is likelier to happen, but that does leave the issue of a large Russian minority, whose position within that set up looks precarious. The fact that the Ukrainians have been parading around an opposition leader (of a pro-Russian party) in shackles is not encouraging in this regard. So perhaps actually 'pushing Putin out of Ukraine' is not the best outcome either.
The best option to me seems to be what someone here suggested not long ago, to 'lease' these areas to Putin, not officially ceding them to Russia. He gets his buffer from NATO encroachment, the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine get their protector, Ukraine gets an income, and above all the fighting stops. To get there though, Ukraine's sponsors, and Russia's allies, all need to use their influence to push peace talks, not continued war.
As an aside, the links I just posted showed how the plebiscites were a major sticking point in Minsk II. *If* ones were to be given, they will have to try to get around those sticking points. It's not as easy as just holding a vote.
https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1519687572905152512
So this is some humourous getting ahead of himself.
If I get evaporated soon, it’s being nice knowing you. Well, some of you.
(*fighters common as muck in Scotland. Unheard of in this part of Sweden.)
coming from you, that's a bit rich.
But in the meantime, I will respond to your post in the manner it deserves.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
But what are you prepared to allow in order to avoid it?
It has to be a solid red line, otherwise it is meaningless.
1. Votes for displaced.
2. UN or other suitable international supervision including over campaigns, voter registration, voting and counting.
3. International peace keeping force can use force against any attempts to intimidate.
4. A breathing space without any conflict before the vote.
Anything else required to make it legit?
IMO the time to seize oligarch's money is after the war is over, preferably through a proper legal process that was in place before the war.
hope op went well and speedy recovery.
Hope you're okay after your knee op.
But:
Hahahahahahaha!
My advice: stay off of your pogo stick, hire a sedan chair and get back to kicking ass ASAP.
A The General Staff, not the President, has the Russian nuclear launch codes, and uses them on the President's instructions to either 1. send launch instructions to individual launch commanders or 2. using the Perimetr system, automatically launch them themselves, bypassing the commanders.
B Gerasimov is Chief of the General Staff.
C Presumably he delegates his responsibvility when out of the country, and he definitely will if he's dead.
D So if Putin has sent him to Izyum, either this is immaterial because Putin has no intention in the world to instruct anyone to launch anything
E Or Putin wants someone junior to Gerasimov to be on the other end of the hot line for the next week or so, for reasons we can only guess at
The first thing a professional QC would do is refuse the position, surely?
The US Air Force has been accused of risking upsetting "traumatised" Ukrainian refugees by sending low-flying fighter jets over a town centre.
MP Hywel Williams dubbed the noise of the F-15s "deafening".
He said the planes' flying schedules needed to be examined in light of the "exceptional" incident over Caernarfon, Gwynedd, on Friday.
The US Air Force apologised for the disturbance. It said it was looking into what happened.
Mr Williams has now written a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace about the matter after receiving complaints. Branding the flights "stunts" he told the minister they cause noise, nuisance and fear and were not acceptable.
"Having welcomed a number of Ukrainian refugees to Arfon, I find it shocking that the Ministry of Defence would think such unscheduled and unnecessary flights would be acceptable in the current climate.
"Goodness knows what these already traumatised families must think."
Mr Williams said the planes were allowed to fly between 100 and 250ft.
He told the BBC: "They were coming over Caernarfon town centre, as far as I could see, or hear.
I think the story is slightly more nuanced than that, and that the practice is more widespread than just this reported case. Essentially, AIUI, the companies/countries are paying in dollars or euros, but they are being forced to buy Russian energy from Gazprom solely through the Gazprom bank, and the bank is the one doing the exchange of those currencies into rubles.
The original sin in my view is the purchase of the energy from Russia. The mechanisms of when and by whom the currency is converted is for the birds AFAIAC.
When I used to go on holiday to Anglesey as a child the RAF used to fly incessantly. Excitingly deafening, it was.
All of the areas of Ukraine, including the 'Russian' speaking ones, voted for an independent Ukraine in the referendum they held.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
ISTM that our role is to support the elected Ukrainian Government.
And they know that Putin's forces rolled into town with death lists, detention lists, and all the other appurtenances of a Stalinist playbook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmH3-uHLxig
(Hope it isn't too sore.)
You really couldn't make it up....
A labour mp has been suspended for bullying and harassment and a Welsh mp has accused a shadow cabinet minister of lewd talking
This is not a party political issue, it is across society and is very depressing
🟨⬜⬜🟨🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Did not, for obv reasons, use the result to start quordle.
Wordle 313 4/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨
🟨⬜🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
It sounds (no pun intended) as if some pilots might have messed up and weren't where they should have been.
Welsh Chapel Culture is not all gone, perhaps?
Indeed I heard one 20 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61245456
Ultimately the German government has decided that "never again" is just bullshit and that the mass rape, murder and violation of Ukrainian civilians is an acceptable cost of doing business to keep their factories open.
Describing someone as attractive or offering a compliment is one thing - though it needs a certain amount of sensitivity and good manners not to stray over the line. But describing someone in a way that implies that a female colleague is some sort of tart or is viewed as such by others is not complimentary at all. And not professional either.
Time to repost this. From autumn 2018. As relevant now as it was then - sadly: http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/06/the-pb-cynics-dictionary-especially-complied-for-the-times/
See the definitions of "sexual harassment" and "banter".
British wholesale gas dropped today to £1.57p/therm
If the trajectory continues, we can expect to see domestic fixed tariffs below the price cap being offered.
Nimrod engine testing was pretty thunderous, too.
Could have used a better expression when talking about lewd sexual innuendo.....
It's not always too clear from MoD stuff but it looks as if low flying is 2000 feet above grouind level or less. So there could well be plenty of traffic over you from Valley and the bay ranges to the south, and it wouldn't count as low flying, though it's noticeable and noisy enough. .
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/military-low-flying#uk-military-low-flying-system
https://www.gov.uk/low-flying-in-your-area
Still not terribly excited. I mean every adult in the country thinks Johnson is a flsoj, or is the second coming of w Churchill, so you're gonna get bias. Plus he is not in a quasi judicial capacity, just advising. Plus phatboi's initial choice was someone who was at the parties, so he can't complain too loudly about bias
I once was playing on the course when a Vulcan took off and stood on its tail immediately above us and the noise was unbelievable and I felt I was bring drilled into the green. Indeed I missed my birdie putt.
This is the main reason that Minsk II wasn't implemented - any time a Ukrainian leader made moves to do so, the Ukrainian people made sure they knew that they weren't having it.
Knowing this about the Ukrainian people, then the provision of Western weaponry is the path to minimise suffering, as it maximises the probability of a Ukrainian victory, reduces the duration of a war, and saves many Ukrainian citizens from extended Russian occupation.
I hope that the $33bn request for funding for Ukraine is approved rapidly, and that the UK continues to provide as much support as we are able.
That said, 250’ over a town is not normal at all, and I doubt that was the case. Over the hills yes they go that low.
Pilots follow what’s called the 500 foot rule, which means you never fly within 500’ of any people or structures. Mil are exempt in certain circumstances but are generally respectful.
What information we have says that Putin has united the Russian and Ukrainian speaking populations into patriotic support for Ukraine.
The war has united Ukrainians as never before and fuelled a massive outpouring of anger towards Russia. A nationwide poll conducted on March 18 by the Rating Sociological Group found that 98% of Ukrainians regard Russia as a hostile country, with minimal differences in opinion registered from region to region across Ukraine.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/vladimir-putins-criminal-war-has-killed-the-myth-russian-ukrainian-unity/
Mariupol, for example, is (was) predominately Russian speaking.
Were Russia to succeed, it would not surprise me if Putin treated the Russian-speaking Ukrainians like Stalin treated surviving Russian POWs in 1945 - shoot them, or off to the Gulag / Labour Camp in Siberia with the traitors.
* I believe a significant majority of the German population would make those sacrifices on behalf of Ukraine.
What those unfamiliar with 'Whips' let alone 'Chief' one's God only knows! For what it's worth I find the whole things ridiculous.
If he wants to watch porn so what?
On a scale of one to Boris Johnson Getting dosh for his US squeeze when Mayor of London 'cos he was shagging her this scores a straight zero!
‘Poisoned chalice’: senior Tories sought for place on committee judging PM
Boris Johnson faces investigation by privileges committee into whether he lied to Commons over Partygate
...
Experienced Tory MPs with a “neutral” attitude to Boris Johnson are being sought to sit on the committee judging whether he misled parliament over Partygate, following concerns that its current membership is too aligned to the government.
Johnson is facing an investigation by the privileges committee into whether he lied to the Commons when he said he did not know about any parties in Downing Street during lockdown.
It was thought the current membership of seven – four Tories, two Labour, and one SNP MP – would conduct the investigation. However, two of the Tories are government aides and the Labour chair, Chris Bryant, has recused himself from the investigation for having already said he thought Johnson should quit.
...
NEW: Telegraph understands the ‘porn MP’ was not in the 2015, 2017 or 2019 intakes. Which knocks out around 120 male Tory MPs. (Per sources familiar with ID)
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1519741875703398402?t=Se58WNDmczsb6AN41MsxOQ&s=19
Something is bound to leak out.
Very, very occasionally they overfly, at great height, but it is still incredibly loud by comparison with the usual traffic pottering into Marshalls.