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.
You're really ramping up. Or alternatively leaking a lot. Certainly you know your onions!
"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)
"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)
"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)
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.
I think that's rather harsh. I'll agree about Merkel's complete decades long f*ck*p. However, Germany *has* fundamentally changed its spots on Russia and woken up (France has not), and they are pivoting fairly rapidly. Oil will be gone by the end of the year. And gas will be a long way down.
If Parliament hill lido had been heated, rather than being a liquid near-icecube in a big block of concrete, I'd have favoured it over the bathing ponds.
"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.
The destruction of Ukrainian cities by shelling has been brutal and horrifying, but it's still important to realise that we only hear one side of this conflict. Mariupol and the methods used by its defenders is a particularly grey area. The poll sounds interesting, but I think we would need to hear a bit more about it to be convinced that it is a true reflection of Ukrainian opinion.
"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)
"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)
"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.
What the people want doesn't matter and never has, we have to presume they are all in favour of Russia because they are Russian speaking or we are just lacking realism or something. And it is totally fair to dismiss optimistic assessments but dismissing pessimistic assessments is also lacking realism, despite being no more likely to be true even if someone once served somewhere.
"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.
The destruction of Ukrainian cities by shelling has been brutal and horrifying, but it's still important to realise that we only hear one side of this conflict. Mariupol and the methods used by its defenders is a particularly grey area. The poll sounds interesting, but I think we would need to hear a bit more about it to be convinced that it is a true reflection of Ukrainian opinion.
"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.
Perhaps - the way to ascertain that is to put it to the rest.
"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.
As I noted in the other post, the alleged "hatred" between the "two factions" is a myth.
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.
We bought a house in a village north of Bicester in 1986. We'd looked at it several times during the buying process, always at a weekend. After moving in on a Saturday, we took the next week to unpack etc.
Monday morning at 9:00am the F111s started taking off from Upper Heyford a few miles away - right over our house. The noise was unbelievable, we thought: 'what have we done?!'
Fortunately, they were taking off over us because the wind was in the east. We soon got used to the (much quieter) landing approaches and became conditioned to the occasional take-offs, in time. And they mostly only flew 9-5, Monday to Friday. But blimey they were loud.
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.
There is long-standing issue re: noise in vicinity of Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in WA State north of Seattle due to navy pilot training and other operations. Pitting Navy against local residents, many who moved to area and invested in retirement properties.
One issue with aircraft noise besides altitude of planes, is type of aircraft, frequency of operations AND local topographic & atmospheric conditions that can amplify noise.
(I actually have the last situation at my humble abode, not with airplanes but with street noise amplified by a narrow alley between my apartment & neighboring building; if a truck or bus is parked just out front with its motor running the sound level can be both impressive and depressing!)
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.
We bought a house in a village north of Bicester in 1986. We'd looked at it several times during the buying process, always at a weekend. After moving in on a Saturday, we took the next week to unpack etc.
Monday morning at 9:00am the F111s started taking off from Upper Heyford a few miles away - right over our house. The noise was unbelievable, we thought: 'what have we done?!'
Fortunately, they were taking off over us because the wind was in the east. We soon got used to the (much quieter) landing approaches and became conditioned to the occasional take-offs, in time. And they mostly only flew 9-5, Monday to Friday. But blimey they were loud.
Here in the Flatlands we got to watch Vulcan XH558 do its thang on return from the latest display. Loud doesn't quite cover it.
A QRA with multiple Vulcans must have been quite something, even if the implications of actually needing one were somewhat alarming. They were of course lined up ready - nuclear armed - on the end of the runway at Finningley during the Cuban crisis.
Now it is just the odd sonic boom from the Coningsby crew if someone is flying into UK airspace with a broken radio.
"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)
Do you remember the "spreadsheet of shame" of "sex pests" that was secretly delighting chattering classes 4-5 years ago - compiled by persons unknown alleged to be Parliamentary Staff, speculated about, then leaked and much of it was tittle-tattle about perfectly ordinary events.
A tell-tale on that one was that it was all Tories, and it was mainly about smearing. Is this time any different?
Was just wondering - various people have a belief that Putin works on the idea of a greater Russia. He sees that Russia is huge and he can hide in Siberia in a bunker and yes, Moscow and St P take a massive hit if he starts a nuclear war but Russia is huge and his circle are far away.
That’s all sound.
Until the Chinese look at what is left of Russia and walk into Siberia and other regions.
So Putin destroys one part of Russia in the aim of long term creation of a glorious hardened Russia from the ashes of the northern hemisphere, pops his head out of his bunker to a “Welcome to China” sign.
Doesn’t seem like the Russians would end up on top.
OT. Is Moon Rabbit a reincarnation of that Enoch Powell fan whose name I've forgotten?
Another great avatar from you Rogerdamus.
Are you a New Wave fan?
Thank you. One I took in Paris last winter. Yes I am (If you're talking about the French Nouvelle Vague) A big fan. I like most French Cinema of that time.
Comments
Did he go to private school? Does he own rental property? Was the second-placed candidate in his constituency a Lib Dem?
So I'm knocking another one out.
It's a bit wussy only turning down the heated outdoor lidos of Berlin by 2C, though.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/27/berlin-cools-pools-in-political-statement-against-russian-gas
If Parliament hill lido had been heated, rather than being a liquid near-icecube in a big block of concrete, I'd have favoured it over the bathing ponds.
Except - perhaps - for any parts of the extreme East occupied by Russia, where ethnic cleansing has altered the population balance. Here's an analysis of a survey from earlier this year:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/15/russia-ukraine-donbas-donetsk-luhansk-public-opinion/
Monday morning at 9:00am the F111s started taking off from Upper Heyford a few miles away - right over our house. The noise was unbelievable, we thought: 'what have we done?!'
Fortunately, they were taking off over us because the wind was in the east. We soon got used to the (much quieter) landing approaches and became conditioned to the occasional take-offs, in time. And they mostly only flew 9-5, Monday to Friday. But blimey they were loud.
One issue with aircraft noise besides altitude of planes, is type of aircraft, frequency of operations AND local topographic & atmospheric conditions that can amplify noise.
(I actually have the last situation at my humble abode, not with airplanes but with street noise amplified by a narrow alley between my apartment & neighboring building; if a truck or bus is parked just out front with its motor running the sound level can be both impressive and depressing!)
Are you a New Wave fan?
A QRA with multiple Vulcans must have been quite something, even if the implications of actually needing one were somewhat alarming. They were of course lined up ready - nuclear armed - on the end of the runway at Finningley during the Cuban crisis.
Now it is just the odd sonic boom from the Coningsby crew if someone is flying into UK airspace with a broken radio.
Do you remember the "spreadsheet of shame" of "sex pests" that was secretly delighting chattering classes 4-5 years ago - compiled by persons unknown alleged to be Parliamentary Staff, speculated about, then leaked and much of it was tittle-tattle about perfectly ordinary events.
A tell-tale on that one was that it was all Tories, and it was mainly about smearing. Is this time any different?
Here's the nearly unredacted version (alleged 'victim' names removed) for anyone wanting to evaluate a mainly-not-a-scandal:
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/the-unredacted-spreadsheet-of-40-tory-mps-accused-of-inappropriate-sexual-behaviour/
I have yet to see that the current stuff is much different.
That’s all sound.
Until the Chinese look at what is left of Russia and walk into Siberia and other regions.
So Putin destroys one part of Russia in the aim of long term creation of a glorious hardened Russia from the ashes of the northern hemisphere, pops his head out of his bunker to a “Welcome to China” sign.
Doesn’t seem like the Russians would end up on top.