Categories
Why Ukraine was particularly vulnerable to Putin’s ambitions – politicalbetting.com
Why Ukraine was particularly vulnerable to Putin’s ambitions – politicalbetting.com
Between 1909 and 1943 geographer Halford John Mackinder outlined the Heartland theory which goes like this. You can split the world into three parts: The World-Island (Europe, Asia, and Africa combined), the Offshore Islands (British Isles, Japan, etc) and the Outlying Islands (North America, South America, and Oceania). The World-Island can in turn be split into three: the Heartland (approx the Soviet Union), the Southern Heartland (basically Africa), and the Rimlands (the bits between the two: Europe to China via the Middle East and India)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Putin/Thanos
Each with an aim to destroy half of all life.....
Interesting piece in the Telegraph about a Conservative candidate in Somerset. Leaflets getting thrown in her face and posters being ripped down.
There's a lot of anger out there ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/01/disillusioned-blue-wall-voters-spell-trouble-tories-ahead-local/
https://news.sky.com/story/local-elections-2022-growing-divide-in-england-predicted-as-cities-could-swing-to-labour-while-tories-likely-to-hold-on-in-towns-12603868
England would be well advised to drop her own “Heartland” exceptionalist fantasy.
I ask especially because I think I'm right that loads of councils are counting on Friday?
Every PBer will no doubt have seen Dorries's interview on Spectator TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMarkuxrdF8
She talks, of course, about her department's three main bills: Online Harm (regulating the internet); privatising Channel 4; ending television licences and reforming the BBC. But these were dumped on her when she was promoted to SoS at the DCMS, and it shows because she has no real grasp of the detail, having recently misspoken about Channel 4's funding and Channel 5's privatisation, and told Microsoft to stop using algorithms.
Dorries also speaks of the importance to her Conservatism of Mrs Thatcher's Right to Buy.
And in today's edition of Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph, we read:-
Boris Johnson planning to bring back Right to Buy
Return of Thatcher-style scheme would enable tenants to purchase their housing association homes
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/01/boris-johnson-planning-bring-back-right-buy/ (£££)
In more gloom for opposition to Boris, the DT front page headline that Sue Gray report is far from unbiased now, as a Tory hating member of the Labour Party has helped create it, has already done the rounds in express and mail.
What is the PB take on this? Tories seem at least on way if not already there neutralising Sue Report as a threat to Boris, whenever published - what MP could use it to try to oust Boris when it’s impartiality from party politics is now questioned like this? 🤔
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1602905/sue-gray-partygate-boris-johnson-daniel-stillitz-labour-brexit-tory-latest-news-ont
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10769221/Totally-inappropriate-Backlash-grows-Remain-backing-QC-advising-Sue-Gray-Partygate-inquiry.html
It has a huge amount of territory, a lot of natural resources, and a history of brutal repression since it came into being.
It’s brief superpower status was achieved entirely on the back of western technology.
Without nukes it doesn’t even have the potential of Africa, and is more convincingly described as hinterland for Europe and/or China than ‘Heartland’.
- “The poll also shows Labour in second place, which if replicated on polling day would be the party's best result in years”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-line-council-election-victory-26842632
Labour's apparent Scottish revival under Anas Sarwar is really interesting isn't it. Much has been made on here about the impossibility of Labour winning an outright Westminster majority, but that's largely based on their implosion in Scotland. On latest polling they are on course to win c. 9 Westminster seats in Scotland with some suggesting they are beginning to push towards 15 seats.
If they do continue this revival north of the border it changes the landscape.
Thursday's vote could be a significant measure of how much ground they are really recovering.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20093787.adam-tomkins-anas-sarwar-forge-rosy-future-scottish-labour-expense-tories/
Its problem is more likely being run by corrupt, paranoid kleptocrats, rather than any inherent geographic flaws.
It’s funny how often politicians fail to observe elementary rules, eg. never believe your own propaganda.
Daniel Stilitz QC is Director of the High Pay Centre, a think tank with close links to the Left-leaning Compass group. The think tank says it is independent and non-partisan. I don't see any evidence that he is personally a Labour party member? But even if he is, he is a professional barrister.
Hopefully on PB we are above such nonsense.
I hate them. They have ruined Britain.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chums-by-simon-kuper-review-the-oxford-tories-who-rule-us-256fgr85q
"Chums by Simon Kuper review — the Oxford Tories who rule us
Johnson, Cameron, Rees-Mogg, Gove, Cummings and their tiny clique came to dominate politics — and made up their own rules"
You’ve been overreacting to their attempts at pushback more than once.
It’s possible, even likely, that something along these lines is Putin’s worldview.
9 to 15 SLab seats is conceivable, but still looking highly unlikely under the new boundaries. In order to reach respectable numbers like that they would need to get up to approx 30%, with the SNP dropping to around 40%. The SNP are already in that MoE ballpark (42% in last two full-sample Westminster VI polls), but SLab are still a way off 30% (24% and 26% in last two polls).
However, and it’s a big however, 9-15 SLab seats is simply not enough to give Starmer a majority. He needs a Tory collapse in the Midlands. That just looks inconceivable in the current climate.
Lab Maj 5 looks way too short.
And many of the very clever people are trying to leave since the invasion.
Today, @nytimes is publishing “American Nationalist,” our 3-part investigation into the fall and rise of Tucker Carlson and the transformation of American conservatism. Part 1 will appear in Sunday’s paper. A 🧵on our story and findings
https://twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/1520465256866357248
I think this analysis is spot on.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/essay/the-war-in-ukraine-is-a-colonial-war
This part of its conclusion was interesting.
… Ukraine is a post-colonial country, one that does not define itself against exploitation so much as accept, and sometimes even celebrate, the complications of emerging from it. Its people are bilingual, and its soldiers speak the language of the invader as well as their own. The war is fought in a decentralized way, dependent on the solidarity of local communities. These communities are diverse, but together they defend the notion of Ukraine as a political nation. There is something heartening in this. The model of the nation as a mini-empire, replicating inequalities on a smaller scale, and aiming for a homogeneity that is confused with identity, has worn itself out. If we are going to have democratic states in the twenty-first century, they will have to accept some of the complexity that is taken for granted in Ukraine...
Devon councillor believes search for popular brand of combine harvester led to ‘excellent’ MP watching pornography in Parliament
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/01/porn-mp-neil-parish-looking-dominator-friends-say/ (£££)
MPs might be well advised to check their "safe search" settings.
Trump just said at a rally that he endorsed a candidate named “JP right? JD Mandel” in the Ohio Senate race. In reality, he endorsed JD Vance over Josh Mandel, revealing that he can’t even remember the candidate he endorsed.
https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1520934472543354880
"Peace under conditions dictated by 🇷🇺 will not bring security to 🇺🇦 or Europe; may be invitation to next war"
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1520938705845903360
Instead, Putin took the easy way: not to bother, and just let a few people steal his country's wealth, and use some of that money to fight 'popular' wars, and to bribe, threaten and kill people and opponents.
Viewcode's threader is interesting; but I think the war in Ukraine is down to Putin wanting something 'easy'. He expected Ukraine to roll over and then he could take it. In his mind, the war was the 'easy' thing to do. Fix Russia's problems? That's hard. Grab resources by invading? easy.
The Ukrainians have shown him it was not. And I think this is one reason why Russia will lose: fighting a long war will be hard. Mobilisation will be hard. Producing weapons will be hard. For the last two decades, the Russian state have avoided doing the 'hard' things. They're not used to it, and I don't think Putin has the capability or will to learn how to do the 'hard' thing.
Some folks might like to “order” rebellious Jocks to identify as “Brits” (sic), which is their rather odd inclination. Our prerogative is to choose our own identity.
“Ms Denton, a South African-born former tour guide, has also decided not to attend a hustings in Frome, near Bath, because she does not think “nasty” locals in the town will give her a fair hearing.”
Frome is up there with Hebden Bridge, Totnes and perhaps Bishops Castle and Stroud as a bastion of hand-knitted, organic progressive politics. If the Conservatives ever thought attending a hustings there would be a good idea then I have serious doubts about their strategy.
It's particularly apparent in Africa, where colonialists carved up the continent, slicing across all sorts of tribal, ethnic and geographical fault lines.
There are myriads of other crass examples.
We're into our version of the final sequence of Don't Look Up. You can't trust what your eyes see because we have persuaded you to dislike the people who warned you it was coming.
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
Which does make some kind of sense. There is no money to be made in saving money, so you may as well spend it on an appreciating asset like gas.
I think the reason why they are less prominent is because in most of those cases there was rapid realisation that there was little the government or us as individuals could do to help. Ukraine is different because there's an actual fight going on that we can support.
And since this blog ultimately focuses on the implications of events for UK politics, they were discussed for a while or when they were in the news but not usually on general principles.
You could of course write a thread header drawing the parallels - that might stimulate discussion.
Suggest folks don't get carried away at every little anecdote.
Its very difficult to debate with people when alt-fact has embedded in their brains. Anyway, it won't have been the town refusing to debate, it will have been the Tory. Whilst shrieking I'M BEING SILENCED or something.
"I know what it's like to lose. To feel so desperately that you're right, yet to fail nonetheless. It's frightening. Turns the legs to jelly. I ask you, to what end? Dread it. Run from it. Destiny arrives all the same. And now, it's here. Or should I say, I am."
I assumed that was the definition of an 'activist'?
Add in someone asked by the BBC to appear and pontificate on a subject because they're guaranteed to emote. How does being described as an 'activist' add any lustre or knowledge?
Sort of like the finale to this;
https://youtu.be/CtLpv6huG3A
And your response does rather tie-in, if I may say, with the tory candidate's own comment, resonating with a few other pb tories. Essentially it's to stick fingers in ears and tell us what we're hearing is not true.
We will see, but I sense the mood has changed and the anger is for real this time.
And there is lots we could do to help in those conflicts.
I suggest the real reason is that this one is kind-of in our back yard and it's happening to white Europeans not nig-nogs and gollywogs in far away lands.
Appalling but true?
How much that is Johnson's personality and how much it's the bubbleisation of news media, I don't know.
For the avoidance of doubt, the situation in Ukraine is godawful and Putin is Public Enemy no.1. A menace to the entire world. He needs removing.
When you canvas, are you really sure that *everything* you say is the true, unvarnished truth? No exaggerations or simplifications to make someone more likely to vote for you?
Similar scenario on the far left.
Of course I'm right. I wouldn't have said it otherwise.
Thank you for reinventing my reality.
How very typical of you.
PS Do you have any idea what the Infinity Stones are? Or who wields them? Or his intention for all life in the Universe? No Googling now.....
Observationally what really upsets them most is when they tell egregious lies and people stand up to them with facts. Just lie about how amazing everything is - boosterism - and if someone points out that people are poor and unhappy just blame the media or Angela Rayner's growler or say people are poorer in the EU or any old bullshit to deflect away from reality.
This is how we end up with intelligent people saying the most stupid things. They go along with the mood which starts off based on reality but even after it drifts into "there is no asteroid" they're still willing to suspend disbelief because all the people they have decided are allies and even friends are saying it.
That's why I'm suggesting you write a thread. Particularly if you can suggest ways to help. I'm sure many people, like me, have donated money to the relief programmes, but it's difficult to see how we can say, arm the side under attack so they can fight back as we do in Ukraine when they're not actually fighting back (largely because they can't).
Blair & Co. didn't listen. They were in their own bubble.
The rest, as they say, is history.
ETA and five minutes later you announce your departure, which suggests greater interest in trolling than in discussion.
But the answer is simple: if you want them discussed, produce either a threader for OGH, or compose a well-considered comment about it. If you care about something that you believe does not get enough attention, mention it regularly, hopefully in context and politely.
The problem is that this is a UK blog, mainly frequented by UK citizens. Its main focus is on UK politics, with certain other countries getting occasional look-ins (e.g. France recently). The way politics has been moving over the last six years, it's probably hard for much else to get a look-in!
But there is a massive difference between that and open lies on pretty much every subject. The Tories get pulled up for lying on almost every subject these days - usually by people like the ONS. they say "I didn't say that", then get played the clip of them saying that, and respond with "no no no its you biased media types making it up".
There has never been a party in government or close to it that has build its entire ethos on lies like this one. When you call it out they get uppity. And that "I'VE BEEN CANCELLED" approach is what this candidate is doing. Nobody has said she isn't welcome. But as they will challenge lies with evidence she won't go.
I've watched all of the Marvel movies many times over with my son. Thanks for being so patronising.
The comparison of Putin to Thanos is beyond a joke. Putin, of course, would adore the idea. He's not Thanos. He's a little man in every regard who has got away with blue murder because we let him.
p.s. obvs my hero is Captain Marvel although there are a few other kickass females. Stan was pretty progressive in that regard.
The problem was the "why" not the "what". Red Wall places which were crapholes in 1997 got a load of cash. New facilities. Better infrastructure. Educational and health attainments way up. But people didn't like other places doing better.
They quickly forgot the rampant decay of the early 90s and instead wanted the best and thought they didn't get it. Then Labour councils - faced with budget cuts from Westminster - meekly said "its their fault not ours" and tried to blame a decade of drift onto the coalition then Tory governments. Didn't work.
As soon as he reached an interesting point, she'd interrupt with a barmy question of her own. Just let him speak, I found my self saying. It felt like Einstein was being harassed by an intelligent lettuce.
I thought the journalists had learned from the enbarrassing debacle of some of the Covid press conferences. Obviously not.
Poster count:
1 Lab and 1 LD in Sheffield
7 for Green in a bit of Derwent just north of Derby, all within a mile.
Conservative nil
I have made some statements there that can be backed up:
*) she made the 'scum' comment;
*) she refused to apologise;
*) she eventually apologised after a month;
*) and that was after a colleague was murdered.
I don't think these can be disputed. What can be disputed is whether those facts make her apology a 'good' or a 'bad' one. But that's opinion.
Yet people take these and, because they like her, or like her party, or agree with her, they turn them into a 'fact' that her apology means that she cannot be criticised for her original comment.
And yet when someone they don't like does something - say a Tory MP - then *no* apology, however immediate, however heartfelt, can ever be genuine.
Facts, eh?
It's demonstrably not the case that modern "England" considers Scotland a colony to subsume, rape and plunder in the way that Russia is dismantling Ukraine.
Scotland has its own imperialist past to contend with, in particular the "Yes" cities of Dundee and Glasgow.
Most PB nationalists have the grace to direct their ire at "Westminster" or the Tories. It's smart too - independence will never be won on the blood and soil ticket.
Mr. Jonathan, 'bubbles' are nothing new. Social media echo chambers are commonplace, and the Westminster agreement that the EU was lovely meant our politicians were, through lack of practice, unable to have a conversation regarding the institution beyond the we agree it's splendid/you're a fruitcake dichotomy.
That bubble cost Remain an eminently winnable victory because they'd utterly lost the art of making the case for the EU.
People often dislike disagreement and some even take it as a personal slight. There may be a natural trend for modern social media to create such circles of singing from the same hymn sheet which does not require much thinking as views aren't challenged. I do wonder if older style forums which had scope for disagreement as a feature and a flame board if things got toasty were better.
'There is a well-established government procedure for suppressing -- that is, not publishing -- unwanted reports.' This was news to me. I asked how it was done. 'You discredit them,' he explained simply. How? I made notes as he spoke. ... Stage one: The public interest 1) You hint at security considerations. 2) You point out that the report could be used to put unwelcome pressure on government because it might be misinterpreted. [Of course, anything might be misinterpreted. The Sermon on the Mount might be misinterpreted. Indeed, Sir Humphrey Appleby would almost certainly have argued that, had the Sermon on the Mount been a government report, it should certainly not have been published on the grounds that it was a thoroughly irresponsible document: the sub-paragraph suggesting that the meek will inherit the earth could, for instance, do irreparable damage to the defence budget -- Ed.] 3) You then say that it is better to wait for the results of a wider and more detailed survey over a longer time-scale. 4) If there is no such survey being carried out, so much the better. You commission one, which gives you even more time to play with. Stage two: Discredit the evidence that you are not publishing This is, of course, much easier than discrediting evidence that you do publish. You do it indirectly, by press leaks. You say: (a) that it leaves important questions unanswered (b) that much of the evidence is inconclusive (c) that the figures are open to other interpretations (d) that certain findings are contradictory (e) that some of the main conclusions have been questioned Points (a) to (d) are bound to be true. In fact, all of these criticisms can be made of a report without even reading it. There are, for instance, always some questions unanswered -- such as the ones they haven't asked. As regards (e), if some of the main conclusions have not been questioned, question them! Then they have. Stage three: Undermine the recommendations This is easily done, with an assortment of government phrases: (a) 'not really a basis for long-term decisions...' (b) 'not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment...' (c) 'no reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy...' (d) 'broadly speaking, it endorses current practice...' These phrases give comfort to people who have not read the report and who don't want change -- i.e. almost everybody. Stage four: If stage three still leaves doubts, then Discredit The Man Who Produced the Report This must be done OFF THE RECORD. You explain that: (a) he is harbouring a grudge against the government (b) he is a publicity seeker (c) he's trying to get his knighthood (d) he is trying to get his chair (e) he is trying to get his Vice-Chancellorship (f) he used to be a consultant to a multinational company or (g) he wants to be a consultant to a multinational company
Link to high def version below
https://i.redd.it/n1i7kthvc7v11.jpg
Even if doubt has been cast on its veracity, it does rather sum it up. As did Private Eye's 'It's Grim up North London' series.
The Kenyan speech at the UN on the Invasion of Ukraine covers it well.
https://youtu.be/ofijY6M-OA8
While working in Malawi, we used to get patients from over the border in Mozambique, 20 miles away. The same ethnicity and vernacular language, but very different people.
Malawi is quite Scottish, with a rather earnest Presbyterianism, while Mozambique is rather ebullient. "Two bottes of beer and a radio? We've got ourselves a party" as one Mozambiquan said to me about his people.