O/T but if anyone wants something interesting to watch over the weekend there’s a three part doc on iPlayer called “A dangerous dynasty - the house of Assad”.
It’s a really strange/sad/horrific story when you watch how Bashir Assad evolved from eye doctor in London to what he is now and how his wife has evolved (I say evolved but that’s the opposite of their trajectories).
I had a blank in my knowledge of Syria and it’s quite an eye opener.
Very short thread on this. We can't blame Brexit for all of the 5.2% GDP shortfall against a doppelganger UK, but it's apparent that Brexit is largely to blame. 1/ https://twitter.com/CER_EU/status/1535154801050152961
I would just say that brexit is in the economic mix, but it is not all of the problem as you try to paint on here
Most important shipwreck since the Mary Rose found off Norfolk, the Gloucester, shipwrecked carrying the future James IInd. Although he survived much of the crew did not
Most important shipwreck since the Mary Rose found off Norfolk, the Gloucester, shipwrecked carrying the future James IInd. Although he survived much of the crew did not
It shouldn't be, but its still somewhat amazing how few Americans seem to care about what was attempted on January 6th. Call it a coup or not it should have blackened the names of those associated with provoking it, yet that doesnt seem the case.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
You may be surprised but I agree with you and single market with FOM is something I would support but no further
However, that is not political acceptable even by labour at present
Yes, only the SNP and SF are openly advocating Rejoin at present. Not sure about PC or Greens, while LDs see it as a more long term objective, and want SM for now.
For the next GE Rejoin will not be a major party in England's policy, but after that it will be back on the agenda.
Note on QT last night Wes Streeting said if he was in the RMT he would have voted to go on strike, reiterating Nandy's support for the strike yesterday. That is 2 Shadow Cabinet members behind it and its disruption
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
You may be surprised but I agree with you and single market with FOM is something I would support but no further
However, that is not political acceptable even by labour at present
Yes, only the SNP and SF are openly advocating Rejoin at present. Not sure about PC or Greens, while LDs see it as a more long term objective, and want SM for now.
For the next GE Rejoin will not be a major party in England's policy, but after that it will be back on the agenda.
It would only continue on the agenda if our trading relationship continues as it is and unless the UK develops wider trading agreements across the globe
You may be surprised but I agree with you and single market with FOM is something I would support but no further
However, that is not political acceptable even by labour at present
Yes, only the SNP and SF are openly advocating Rejoin at present. Not sure about PC or Greens, while LDs see it as a more long term objective, and want SM for now.
For the next GE Rejoin will not be a major party in England's policy, but after that it will be back on the agenda.
It would only continue on the agenda if our trading relationship continues as it is and unless the UK develops wider trading agreements across the globe
What's the point of trading fresh veg with Australia rather than Austria with energy prices the way they are?
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
You may be surprised but I agree with you and single market with FOM is something I would support but no further
However, that is not political acceptable even by labour at present
Yes, only the SNP and SF are openly advocating Rejoin at present. Not sure about PC or Greens, while LDs see it as a more long term objective, and want SM for now.
For the next GE Rejoin will not be a major party in England's policy, but after that it will be back on the agenda.
It would only continue on the agenda if our trading relationship continues as it is and unless the UK develops wider trading agreements across the globe
What's the point of trading fresh veg with Australia rather than Austria with energy prices the way they are?
Wasn''t there a row about the Tories doing. just that in, I think, 2015?
Yeah the tories argued it was visiting dozens of constituencies so they could spread the costs across different areas, but you can't make that argument in a by-election.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
Maybe, maybe not. The West's unofficial position on Kurds was support of their fighting Iraq or ISIS but turning a blind eye to Turkey bombing Kurds.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
Highly unlikely as Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the US and is the key NATO player in the Middle East and has a veto, including on its own expulsion
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
2 pence on the higher rate of income tax and fuel duty to nil.
How would that affect the nation's finances ?
I doubt it's enough given that it needs to raise £25bn - but I can't find out enough details about the 40% and above bands to give you an accurate answer.
I suspect it would need to be 44p rather than 40p.
It would not need to raise the full £25bn as all changes have knock on effects. The government would be taking extra VAT from the unexpected price increase in the fuel already and extra taxes from energy firms etc already which would make up some of the difference.
But most importantly of all, don't forget that the inflation is itself costing the state a fortune. Wage demands are shooting up and will for the whole public sector, pensions are too and because of the bloody triple lock even if deflation hits us afterwards when prices come back down after the war, pensions won't come back down. If people don't have discretionary expenditure because of the cost to fuel then businesses close and welfare increases. If this is going to happen, it needs to happen before whichever month it is that determines pension etc increases so that the inflation rate when they go up isn't astronomical.
Finally the death of fuel duty is coming anyway, within 7.5 years its going to be illegal to buy a new petrol or diesel car. The state needs to wean itself off the teat of the golden goose of fleecing drivers to pay for the NHS etc via fuel duty anyway so a baby step towards doing that during a war is not unreasonable, especially given it will address a lot of other problems within society.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
Maybe, maybe not. The West's unofficial position on Kurds was support of their fighting Iraq or ISIS but turning a blind eye to Turkey bombing Kurds.
But Erdogan is also trying to tightly control Finnish and Swedish policy on it simultaneously - it's not just out in the field. He tried similar with Germany earlier on, trying to interfere with German domestic politics for the same reason. It's the confluence of all these things ; intra-European political meddling ; continuing to block greater NATO expansion, while threatening simultaneously to expand his own sphere of influence in Syria and elsewhere, which makes me wonder what the West's limit of tolerance will be.
You may be surprised but I agree with you and single market with FOM is something I would support but no further
However, that is not political acceptable even by labour at present
Yes, only the SNP and SF are openly advocating Rejoin at present. Not sure about PC or Greens, while LDs see it as a more long term objective, and want SM for now.
For the next GE Rejoin will not be a major party in England's policy, but after that it will be back on the agenda.
It would only continue on the agenda if our trading relationship continues as it is and unless the UK develops wider trading agreements across the globe
What's the point of trading fresh veg with Australia rather than Austria with energy prices the way they are?
This is not about narrow trading issues but expanding our trade into the Asia Pacific where growth in the future lies
And by the way, I do not see it as an either or, just do both if there is a demand
I often find myself agreeing with Birbalsingh, although I shouldn't as she is the figurehead for Tory disciplinarianism in a post corporal punishment era. That said it seems to work, and I am old enough to remember being told that a good honest beating by masters at school was character building.
Discipline at Eton must have been pretty slack. Imagine if Johnson was at Michaela, he'd never be out of detention.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
What does "win" mean? 2022 borders? 2014 borders?
That's ultimately up to Ukraine, but I would think 2014 borders. The world gets a lot more dangerous if we start agreeing to countries annexing land from their neighbours.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
The wild card there though is if he is seen to be in direct co-operation with Russia. There's some emergent signs of that at the moment.
I often find myself agreeing with Birbalsingh, although I shouldn't as she is the figurehead for Tory disciplinarianism in a post corporal punishment era. That said it seems to work, and I am old enough to remember being told that a good honest beating by masters at school was character building.
Discipline at Eton must have been pretty slack. Imagine if Johnson was at Michaela, he'd never be out of detention.
Not too happy about that as I was constantly sent to detention by my music teacher (triangle) who demanded 600 lines of 'manners maketh man'
Mind you that is maybe why I try to be polite to this day
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
Highly unlikely as Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the US and is the key NATO player in the Middle East and has a veto, including on its own expulsion
For all the potential for Turkey to be a pain, it’s highly unlikely it would align itself with Russia. Historically, Russia has been the enemy. More to the point, the Turkish military forces are heavily dependent on Western equipment and, having seen the shit way Russian equipment has performed, they are unlikely to be switching any time soon.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
Of course there can be. Russia isn't that large a power, much of its forces have been shown to be Potemkin, plus they lack the military industrial capabilities of NATO.
Plus smaller powers regularly can and have defeated larger foreign forces. Afghanistan twice, once versus both USSR and once versus USA/UK etc. Vietnam. Finland versus USSR.
If Ukraine can rely upon western munitions and logistics (and that's a big if) then of course they can win the war. Whether they will is another question, but getting the munitions there is the best way to end this war with a Ukrainian victory.
And some of the activists will travel the evening before and kip down ready for the action.
Honiton and Axminster are on the South Western Railway route from Waterloo rather than the GWR & west coast route through Tiverton Parkway.
It's a slightly strange constituency in that Tiverton and Honiton have little or no geographic or social connection. It's also quite unusual for the south west in that despite being very rural it has two major roads running through it: both the M5 and A303. The south coast road A35 as well. Which means getting there isn't going to be a problem for those who can afford to fill up their cars.
Even here in the East Mids I have been getting emails to join the Tiverton campaign.
I get loads. Several daily. Usual by election message. It's the same regardless of whether it is close or whether they are miles ahead but we fall for it every time. Locally there is a people carrier full going most days from my constituency in Surrey. I would go if I wasn't still hobbling around.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
Only if NATO think they can rely upon Turkey, when push comes to shove.
Under Erdogan that is looking increasingly unlikely. If Erdogan is no friend of NATO nations, and is a friend of Putin, then would he come to the aid of NATO if Article 5 was invoked? It isn't looking likely right now.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
What does "win" mean? 2022 borders? 2014 borders?
That's ultimately up to Ukraine, but I would think 2014 borders. The world gets a lot more dangerous if we start agreeing to countries annexing land from their neighbours.
If we are dividing up the world, in the style of monkeys in a salad bar, then I have a list of bits of countries *I* want.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
And some of the activists will travel the evening before and kip down ready for the action.
Honiton and Axminster are on the South Western Railway route from Waterloo rather than the GWR & west coast route through Tiverton Parkway.
It's a slightly strange constituency in that Tiverton and Honiton have little or no geographic or social connection. It's also quite unusual for the south west in that despite being very rural it has two major roads running through it: both the M5 and A303. The south coast road A35 as well. Which means getting there isn't going to be a problem for those who can afford to fill up their cars.
Even here in the East Mids I have been getting emails to join the Tiverton campaign.
I get loads. Several daily. Usual by election message. It's the same regardless of whether it is close or whether they are miles ahead but we fall for it every time. Locally there is a people carrier full going most days from my constituency in Surrey. I would go if I wasn't still hobbling around.
I cannot make it myself, not least with post covid fatigue*, I need my weekends more than I did a couple of years back.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
Of course there can be. Russia isn't that large a power, much of its forces have been shown to be Potemkin, plus they lack the military industrial capabilities of NATO.
Plus smaller powers regularly can and have defeated larger foreign forces. Afghanistan twice, once versus both USSR and once versus USA/UK etc. Vietnam. Finland versus USSR.
If Ukraine can rely upon western munitions and logistics (and that's a big if) then of course they can win the war. Whether they will is another question, but getting the munitions there is the best way to end this war with a Ukrainian victory.
At what point do you suppose there will come a turning point. Presumably, as per your post, a step up in western munitions and logistics.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
Highly unlikely as Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the US and is the key NATO player in the Middle East and has a veto, including on its own expulsion
For all the potential for Turkey to be a pain, it’s highly unlikely it would align itself with Russia. Historically, Russia has been the enemy. More to the point, the Turkish military forces are heavily dependent on Western equipment and, having seen the shit way Russian equipment has performed, they are unlikely to be switching any time soon.
In a certain sense I hope you're right, but I'm no longer sure, especially with the intensive Russian-Turkish meetings of the last week or two. Turkey currently has inflation of between 75 and 120 %, and a leader who is more and more directly using Putinist / revisionist and anti-Western tropes about his sphere of influence, from Syria and Central Asia to its stance against Greece.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/06/08/why-long-range-western-mlrs-can-become-a-game-changer-for-ukraine/ If we get the right amount of MLRS, use it in combination with modern reconnaissance and targeting, and move to tactics that suit these high-tech weapons, it will allow us to level the numerical superiority of the enemy, including in firepower. Appropriate preconditions will be created for a breaking point in this war.”
This MLRS business is weird and what strikes me is, why now? They would have been a lot more fucking use in January as a deterrent to invasion.
The Javelins and other ATGMs that everyone was wanking off over are great if the Russians have already invaded and are at the end of your street but they were no use for preventing an invasion or holding it at the border.
The Daily Kos military correspondent is a vet with experience maintaining the US system. He recognises how tricky they are to operate.
@Dura_Ace is quite right to ask about that. From what I can see, cautious politics prevails over military sense, until it becomes clear Ukraine are on the point of losing.
I suspect he's wrong about Ukraine being unable to retake territory - if they have the means to knock out Russian artillery.
It shouldn't be, but its still somewhat amazing how few Americans seem to care about what was attempted on January 6th. Call it a coup or not it should have blackened the names of those associated with provoking it, yet that doesnt seem the case.
There were many Republicans post-Jan 6th who would have joined with the Democrats to push out the extremists. The issue was that Pelosi and Co overreached themselves and decided to leverage what happened to go after the GOP as a whole. The GOP then closed ranks.
It also doesn’t help that there have been increasing questions over the question of provocation. There have been plenty of questions about why the leaders of the Proud Boys were not getting charged while the minnows were and increasing comments about how they were FBI informants (the same thing happened in the trial in Michigan of those accused of looking to kidnap Governor Whitmer which collapsed into a sh1t show). Lo and behold, after these comments got wide publicity, charges were filed recently.
There is a growing number outside the traditional tin-foil parts that are increasingly of the view there was election fraud. Check out “2000 Mules.” I have missed it but I haven’t seen a credible, full-scale takedown of the arguments used.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
Russia's best hope of winning was a swift blitzkrieg overwhelming and ending Ukraine. That was what they attempted and if they'd succeeded Ukraine would not be an independent state anymore, but that hasn't happened.
Ukraine's best hope of winning is with NATO munitions and logistics.
A short war is best for Russia, the more that time passes without winning the more time Ukraine has to get NATO weaponry into position, so long as the West steps up to the plate fully.
But the west needs to give Ukraine weapons and they need to do so as soon as possible, but making sure they can safely make it to Ukraine and not fall into Russia's hands instead.
On Topic - the strikes will have no effect on the election.
The mood is an anti-Conservative vote. The vote is going to Labour, because they are the main opposition, not because SKS has demonstrated great vision.
SKS has de-toxified the Labour party back to "European Social Democrat" mode. Mostly.
The unions leaders are quite loudly anti-Starmer as well, when they opine politically. So it will be quite hard to connect them to him.
Wasn''t there a row about the Tories doing. just that in, I think, 2015?
Yes. For the Rochester by-election
When the Tories main opponents were UKIP so the other opposition parties turned a blind eye in the campaign
I don't understand that post. Are you suggesting the Tories would break the election expenses rules if their opponents weren't watching them?
Not that that would work because anyone can inspect their return and it is checked. You would easily get away with a technical breach but not missing off a coach hire. I was always scrupulously honest and would declare stuff that probably wouldn't need declaring just to be on the safe side. We would always check our opponents if we thought there might be an issue.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would not have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands. Imagine if they'd given Ukraine a lot of weaponry, but Ukraine was still overwhelmed and then that weaponry was used on the next target on Putin's list.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
You may be surprised but I agree with you and single market with FOM is something I would support but no further
However, that is not political acceptable even by labour at present
Yes, only the SNP and SF are openly advocating Rejoin at present. Not sure about PC or Greens, while LDs see it as a more long term objective, and want SM for now.
For the next GE Rejoin will not be a major party in England's policy, but after that it will be back on the agenda.
It would only continue on the agenda if our trading relationship continues as it is and unless the UK develops wider trading agreements across the globe
The problem is we had many preferential trading agreements with pan-Pacific nations via the EU. So in my view is a suggestion that unilateral agreements will make us more competitive than say the EU are wholly spurious.
That said Brexit is done, and we are never going back. A future non-Johnsonian Conservative Prime Minister might row back on the Single Market and FOM. It has to be a Conservative Government that goes down that route. It cannot be another Party of Government otherwise the Daily Mail will cry "treason", and they will be clamouring for more EU based referenda on leaving the SM...again
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
It shouldn't be, but its still somewhat amazing how few Americans seem to care about what was attempted on January 6th. Call it a coup or not it should have blackened the names of those associated with provoking it, yet that doesnt seem the case.
There were many Republicans post-Jan 6th who would have joined with the Democrats to push out the extremists. The issue was that Pelosi and Co overreached themselves and decided to leverage what happened to go after the GOP as a whole. The GOP then closed ranks.
It also doesn’t help that there have been increasing questions over the question of provocation. There have been plenty of questions about why the leaders of the Proud Boys were not getting charged while the minnows were and increasing comments about how they were FBI informants (the same thing happened in the trial in Michigan of those accused of looking to kidnap Governor Whitmer which collapsed into a sh1t show). Lo and behold, after these comments got wide publicity, charges were filed recently.
There is a growing number outside the traditional tin-foil parts that are increasingly of the view there was election fraud. Check out “2000 Mules.” I have missed it but I haven’t seen a credible, full-scale takedown of the arguments used.
It shouldn't be, but its still somewhat amazing how few Americans seem to care about what was attempted on January 6th. Call it a coup or not it should have blackened the names of those associated with provoking it, yet that doesnt seem the case.
There were many Republicans post-Jan 6th who would have joined with the Democrats to push out the extremists. The issue was that Pelosi and Co overreached themselves and decided to leverage what happened to go after the GOP as a whole. The GOP then closed ranks.
It also doesn’t help that there have been increasing questions over the question of provocation. There have been plenty of questions about why the leaders of the Proud Boys were not getting charged while the minnows were and increasing comments about how they were FBI informants (the same thing happened in the trial in Michigan of those accused of looking to kidnap Governor Whitmer which collapsed into a sh1t show). Lo and behold, after these comments got wide publicity, charges were filed recently.
There is a growing number outside the traditional tin-foil parts that are increasingly of the view there was election fraud. Check out “2000 Mules.” I have missed it but I haven’t seen a credible, full-scale takedown of the arguments used.
Wikipedia says it is full of fibs, and cites sources. Does that count as a credible takedown? 2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that falsely claims that unnamed nonprofit organizations paid Democrat-aligned "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. D'Souza has a history of creating and spreading conspiracy theories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Mules
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
I certainly hope so. I have confidence that Boris and Truss will be pushing for it, so that's good at least. I have absolutely no confidence in Macron and Scholz and we should discount them entirely. Eastern Europe are very keen to help which is important logistically.
The question is Biden. Had Trump been in power, then no chance. Had Reagan been in power, then definitely. But Biden, I am not certain about Biden he is the variable, I think he will be happy to do a decisive increase since he's got Ukraine and the UK and Eastern Europe pushing for it too.
I often find myself agreeing with Birbalsingh, although I shouldn't as she is the figurehead for Tory disciplinarianism in a post corporal punishment era. That said it seems to work, and I am old enough to remember being told that a good honest beating by masters at school was character building.
Discipline at Eton must have been pretty slack. Imagine if Johnson was at Michaela, he'd never be out of detention.
That's the problem in a nutshell, both in the way the government use her and, sadly, how she sounds off on discipline. It's tough no-nonsense discipline for the plebs (and don't go getting silly ideas about Oxbridge), and louche indulgence for the toffs. That may not be her view of the world but it is very much the Tory disciplinarian view of the world.
If we are dividing up the world, in the style of monkeys in a salad bar, then I have a list of bits of countries *I* want.
Ils ont partagé le monde, plus rien ne m'étonne.
As noted scholar of international relations, Tiken Jah Fakoly observed.
The whole of human history if one of violent conquest. If you can take it and keep it then it's yours. I wouldn't have thought any Englishman would have to have that spelled out to them.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
The wild card there though is if he is seen to be in direct co-operation with Russia. There's some emergent signs of that at the moment.
Bear in mind that Finland can, at a push, deploy a surprisingly large number of troops due to national service and a programme of retraining reservists. And a somewhat more reliable ally than Erdogan.
"The number of active military personnel in the Finnish Defence Forces is a modest 23,000, but the country boasts a wartime strength of 280,000 because of its massive conscription system. A total of 900,000 Finnish reservists can be mobilized — a product of the deep-seated focus on security in a country that shares an 800-mile border with Russia, and was twice invaded in the 20th century."
If we are dividing up the world, in the style of monkeys in a salad bar, then I have a list of bits of countries *I* want.
Ils ont partagé le monde, plus rien ne m'étonne.
As noted scholar of international relations, Tiken Jah Fakoly observed.
The whole of human history if one of violent conquest. If you can take it and keep it then it's yours. I wouldn't have thought any Englishman would have to have that spelled out to them.
I though there was some idea of moving beyond the morality of the of "to the strongest"?
Or are you suggesting we should just get on with the Second British Empire?
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
I certainly hope so. I have confidence that Boris and Truss will be pushing for it, so that's good at least. I have absolutely no confidence in Macron and Scholz and we should discount them entirely. Eastern Europe are very keen to help which is important logistically.
The question is Biden. Had Trump been in power, then no chance. Had Reagan been in power, then definitely. But Biden, I am not certain about Biden he is the variable, I think he will be happy to do a decisive increase since he's got Ukraine and the UK and Eastern Europe pushing for it too.
I can't see why Biden wouldn't be satisfied with the status quo. Grinding long haul war with ground given and taken, wearing down the Russian resources. I read an article (didn't we all) that said Russia wanted to secure energy supplies and would satisfy itself once achieved.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
That largely depends on the US.
It does indeed. Wars are very expensive, both directly and indirectly on the economy.
I have my doubts as to whether Ukraine can maintain a long war. Both economies are suffering major disruption. The Ukrainian grain harvest has very limited means of export, a quarter of the population are refugees and much of industry, workforce and logistics is now militarised. Without massive economic aid from the West, it is not sustainable for long as a high intensity war. Not that the Russians are in a much better position to continue either.
The fact that both Streeting, supposedly originally a Blairite favourite, and Nandy, seem to have been licensed by Starmer to back the strikes, is potentially one of the most interesting and significant developments in British politics since the arrival of Blair himself.
"Speaking on the BBC's Question Time last night he claimed that while he wished the strikes weren't happening, he said: 'Put it this way, if I was a member of the RMT and my job was at risk like this, then I would be voting to go on strike'. But he added that the Government must step in to broker a pay deal that will call off the industrial action."
I often find myself agreeing with Birbalsingh, although I shouldn't as she is the figurehead for Tory disciplinarianism in a post corporal punishment era. That said it seems to work, and I am old enough to remember being told that a good honest beating by masters at school was character building.
Discipline at Eton must have been pretty slack. Imagine if Johnson was at Michaela, he'd never be out of detention.
That's the problem in a nutshell, both in the way the government use her and, sadly, how she sounds off on discipline. It's tough no-nonsense discipline for the plebs (and don't go getting silly ideas about Oxbridge), and louche indulgence for the toffs. That may not be her view of the world but it is very much the Tory disciplinarian view of the world.
If you think there is no discipline at private schools, I suggest you never went to boarding school!
Birbalsingh also has an excellent record of getting her pupils into Oxbridge and the Russell Group. She just said that was not the only route to social mobility eg if your parents were unemployed and you get a job
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
There's already been a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine. That needs to continue though, we need to not rest on our laurels. It needs to be continuous aid, until the war is over. There is not a single inflection point.
In the words of Thatcher, 'this is no time to go wobbly'.
It shouldn't be, but its still somewhat amazing how few Americans seem to care about what was attempted on January 6th. Call it a coup or not it should have blackened the names of those associated with provoking it, yet that doesnt seem the case.
There were many Republicans post-Jan 6th who would have joined with the Democrats to push out the extremists. The issue was that Pelosi and Co overreached themselves and decided to leverage what happened to go after the GOP as a whole. The GOP then closed ranks.
It also doesn’t help that there have been increasing questions over the question of provocation. There have been plenty of questions about why the leaders of the Proud Boys were not getting charged while the minnows were and increasing comments about how they were FBI informants (the same thing happened in the trial in Michigan of those accused of looking to kidnap Governor Whitmer which collapsed into a sh1t show). Lo and behold, after these comments got wide publicity, charges were filed recently.
There is a growing number outside the traditional tin-foil parts that are increasingly of the view there was election fraud. Check out “2000 Mules.” I have missed it but I haven’t seen a credible, full-scale takedown of the arguments used.
Dinesh D'Souza. This is where your shit politics have led you. Order some Alex Jones dietary supplements to boost your brain power and think about it.
Wasn''t there a row about the Tories doing. just that in, I think, 2015?
Yes. For the Rochester by-election
When the Tories main opponents were UKIP so the other opposition parties turned a blind eye in the campaign
I don't understand that post. Are you suggesting the Tories would break the election expenses rules if their opponents weren't watching them?
Not that that would work because anyone can inspect their return and it is checked. You would easily get away with a technical breach but not missing off a coach hire. I was always scrupulously honest and would declare stuff that probably wouldn't need declaring just to be on the safe side. We would always check our opponents if we thought there might be an issue.
Except you didn't at the time as that would have handed the seat to UKIP and your party was in government with the Tories.
Had the LDs been the Tories main opponents you would have been in full sanctimonious LD mode no doubt!
I often find myself agreeing with Birbalsingh, although I shouldn't as she is the figurehead for Tory disciplinarianism in a post corporal punishment era. That said it seems to work, and I am old enough to remember being told that a good honest beating by masters at school was character building.
Discipline at Eton must have been pretty slack. Imagine if Johnson was at Michaela, he'd never be out of detention.
That's the problem in a nutshell, both in the way the government use her and, sadly, how she sounds off on discipline. It's tough no-nonsense discipline for the plebs (and don't go getting silly ideas about Oxbridge), and louche indulgence for the toffs. That may not be her view of the world but it is very much the Tory disciplinarian view of the world.
To be fair to her, 80% of Michaela sixth formers go to Russell Group Universities. The "stand up, sit, down stand up" nonsense puzzles me and detention for not having one's tie straight seems petty. But her point in the interview seems to be if Johnson had undergone such discipline he wouldn't have been such a idle, feckless Prime Minister/ Human Being.
I am conflicted. I like her results, but her methods (which to an extent I approve) do seem to confirm to elitist Conservatives that peasants need to be disciplined in order to know their place.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
Only if NATO think they can rely upon Turkey, when push comes to shove.
Under Erdogan that is looking increasingly unlikely. If Erdogan is no friend of NATO nations, and is a friend of Putin, then would he come to the aid of NATO if Article 5 was invoked? It isn't looking likely right now.
Erdoğan isn't a friend of Putin, there is historic enmity between Russia and Turkey, Turkey has sent weapons to Ukraine too, especially drones. Just he also wants to control the Kurds. He is the main NATO nation in the Middle East
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
I certainly hope so. I have confidence that Boris and Truss will be pushing for it, so that's good at least. I have absolutely no confidence in Macron and Scholz and we should discount them entirely. Eastern Europe are very keen to help which is important logistically.
The question is Biden. Had Trump been in power, then no chance. Had Reagan been in power, then definitely. But Biden, I am not certain about Biden he is the variable, I think he will be happy to do a decisive increase since he's got Ukraine and the UK and Eastern Europe pushing for it too.
I can't see why Biden wouldn't be satisfied with the status quo. Grinding long haul war with ground given and taken, wearing down the Russian resources. I read an article (didn't we all) that said Russia wanted to secure energy supplies and would satisfy itself once achieved.
A Ukrainian victory would grind down Russia's resources.
It will also cement Biden's place in history with a great foreign policy achievement. All Presidents look to leave a legacy and that would be one to be proud of.
Most important shipwreck since the Mary Rose found off Norfolk, the Gloucester, shipwrecked carrying the future James IInd. Although he survived much of the crew did not
Same as for any recurring story, it drops down the news. The first few relaunches are newsworthy, after that it's just, meh, Boris prattling on again; we all know nothing will come of it, so it isn't news.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
The problem with that is that it is not a solution to the issue. As you freely admit, the war will flare up again - with a much strengthened Russia that will have learnt lessons - especially if the sanctions are lifted as part of the ceasefire.
That would be worse than the situation we have now.
The only ways this ends is if Russia is defeated in Ukraine, or if Russia takes over Eastern Europe. Talks of ceasefires, of Ukraine ceding territory, are all, at best, temporary measures. Putin and Russia wants more, and anyone disregarding that is essentially ignoring their aims.
I also disagree with the conclusion that "The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts". There are various ways this might happen, and even Crimea (though admittedly that is much more complex).
The only people who can decide to cede Ukrainian territory to Russia is Ukraine. Anyone - or country - putting pressure on them to do so for a (at best) temporary peace is appeasing fascism and evil.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
That largely depends on the US.
It does indeed. Wars are very expensive, both directly and indirectly on the economy.
I have my doubts as to whether Ukraine can maintain a long war. Both economies are suffering major disruption. The Ukrainian grain harvest has very limited means of export, a quarter of the population are refugees and much of industry, workforce and logistics is now militarised. Without massive economic aid from the West, it is not sustainable for long as a high intensity war. Not that the Russians are in a much better position to continue either.
A combination this years lack of planting (so limited harvest) and the Ukraine no longer having any ports from which it can export grain is going to be a major problem for the Ukraine.
It's also a problem for the rest of the world for the next 18 months because chances are we've lost enough of the global food supply to have problems...
Most important shipwreck since the Mary Rose found off Norfolk, the Gloucester, shipwrecked carrying the future James IInd. Although he survived much of the crew did not
Same as for any recurring story, it drops down the news. The first few relaunches are newsworthy, after that it's just, meh, Boris prattling on again; we all know nothing will come of it, so it isn't news.
The Times ran with it yesterday, so there wasn't much new to say again today.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
I certainly hope so. I have confidence that Boris and Truss will be pushing for it, so that's good at least. I have absolutely no confidence in Macron and Scholz and we should discount them entirely. Eastern Europe are very keen to help which is important logistically.
The question is Biden. Had Trump been in power, then no chance. Had Reagan been in power, then definitely. But Biden, I am not certain about Biden he is the variable, I think he will be happy to do a decisive increase since he's got Ukraine and the UK and Eastern Europe pushing for it too.
I can't see why Biden wouldn't be satisfied with the status quo. Grinding long haul war with ground given and taken, wearing down the Russian resources. I read an article (didn't we all) that said Russia wanted to secure energy supplies and would satisfy itself once achieved.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
Only if NATO think they can rely upon Turkey, when push comes to shove.
Under Erdogan that is looking increasingly unlikely. If Erdogan is no friend of NATO nations, and is a friend of Putin, then would he come to the aid of NATO if Article 5 was invoked? It isn't looking likely right now.
Erdoğan isn't a friend of Putin, there is historic enmity between Russia and Turkey, Turkey has sent weapons to Ukraine too, especially drones. Just he also wants to control the Kurds. He is the main NATO nation in the Middle East
It's far too early to say on this. Turkey's policy seems to be in flux for the moment, and he's in regular contact with the Russians outside NATO auspices.
I often find myself agreeing with Birbalsingh, although I shouldn't as she is the figurehead for Tory disciplinarianism in a post corporal punishment era. That said it seems to work, and I am old enough to remember being told that a good honest beating by masters at school was character building.
Discipline at Eton must have been pretty slack. Imagine if Johnson was at Michaela, he'd never be out of detention.
That's the problem in a nutshell, both in the way the government use her and, sadly, how she sounds off on discipline. It's tough no-nonsense discipline for the plebs (and don't go getting silly ideas about Oxbridge), and louche indulgence for the toffs. That may not be her view of the world but it is very much the Tory disciplinarian view of the world.
To be fair to her, 80% of Michaela sixth formers go to Russell Group Universities. The "stand up, sit, down stand up" nonsense puzzles me and detention for not having one's tie straight seems petty. But her point in the interview seems to be if Johnson had undergone such discipline he wouldn't have been such a idle, feckless Prime Minister/ Human Being.
I am conflicted. I like her results, but her methods (which to an extent I approve) do seem to confirm to elitist Conservatives that peasants need to be disciplined in order to know their place.
At the local Free School, which has achieved some very good results, and attracted a mix of students from the rich, the well off and also the poorest estates, discipline is pretty strict.
Some of the middle class parents were startled by strictness regarding uniforms, for example. The poorer parents had to point out that, in their view, this was quite important in stamping out any attempt to bring gang culture into the school.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
Only if NATO think they can rely upon Turkey, when push comes to shove.
Under Erdogan that is looking increasingly unlikely. If Erdogan is no friend of NATO nations, and is a friend of Putin, then would he come to the aid of NATO if Article 5 was invoked? It isn't looking likely right now.
Erdoğan isn't a friend of Putin, there is historic enmity between Russia and Turkey, Turkey has sent weapons to Ukraine too, especially drones. Just he also wants to control the Kurds. He is the main NATO nation in the Middle East
It's far too early to say on this. Turkey's policy seems to be in flux for the moment, and he's in regular contact with the Russians outside NATO auspices.
No, I think we can say that Erdoğan isn't a friend of Putin. Like, he isn't going to help him at Turkey's cost. Erdoğan iis just deciding how much if at all he's prepared to hurt Turkey to help Ukraine against Russia.
“As Mr Johnson announced a series of wide-ranging policies in Blackpool on Thursday, senior Tories said he must go further with fuel tax cuts.
“The Treasury has slashed duty by just five pence per litre, compared with 17 pence in Ireland and Spain and 25 pence in Germany.”
Coincidentally, Nigel Farage said the same thing yesterday, though he also blamed our closed refineries, for which he blames the cost of electricity here, for which he blames green stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPRj2UE_RhA
Not that senior Tories would be watching Nigel Farage videos!
The 5p fuel duty cut is estimated to have cost 2.4 billion pounds a year.
I understand why people want to cut by more. But where is the money coming from?
You know- the basic question Conservatives are meant to ask?
Is it fair to summarise that the cut in fuel duty took money out of the exchequer and gave it to the fuel companies?
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
It really is not. Just before this war began, Nick was going on about how the US and UK warning that Russia was going to invade Ukraine as wrong, as it might 'poke' Russia into the war.
It was bullshit (I believe Nick has since moderated his position). He also later went on about how we guaranteed Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards. Which appears not only to be wrong, but immoral as it gives Russia a great deal of power over their (in the minds) vassal states.
Those states are independent (yes, Russia Duma, even Lithuania). It should be up to them to decide - especially when they have a country near them acting as Russia is.
I am perfectly willing to listen to people who want to highlight any solution to this mess. I also hope they're willing to listen to why forcing Ukraine to give up territory (again) is a really bad idea in the medium and long term. But they rarely do.
I often find myself agreeing with Birbalsingh, although I shouldn't as she is the figurehead for Tory disciplinarianism in a post corporal punishment era. That said it seems to work, and I am old enough to remember being told that a good honest beating by masters at school was character building.
Discipline at Eton must have been pretty slack. Imagine if Johnson was at Michaela, he'd never be out of detention.
That's the problem in a nutshell, both in the way the government use her and, sadly, how she sounds off on discipline. It's tough no-nonsense discipline for the plebs (and don't go getting silly ideas about Oxbridge), and louche indulgence for the toffs. That may not be her view of the world but it is very much the Tory disciplinarian view of the world.
If you think there is no discipline at private schools, I suggest you never went to boarding school!
There was no "louche indulgence" at my boarding school which has produced its share of tory mps (and anarchists).
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
That largely depends on the US.
It does indeed. Wars are very expensive, both directly and indirectly on the economy.
I have my doubts as to whether Ukraine can maintain a long war. Both economies are suffering major disruption. The Ukrainian grain harvest has very limited means of export, a quarter of the population are refugees and much of industry, workforce and logistics is now militarised. Without massive economic aid from the West, it is not sustainable for long as a high intensity war. Not that the Russians are in a much better position to continue either.
It's destructive for everyone involved - and those not directly involved, large parts of Africa for example, too.
23 million tonnes of last year's harvest unexportable, and who knows what of this year's will have consequences.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
Only if NATO think they can rely upon Turkey, when push comes to shove.
Under Erdogan that is looking increasingly unlikely. If Erdogan is no friend of NATO nations, and is a friend of Putin, then would he come to the aid of NATO if Article 5 was invoked? It isn't looking likely right now.
Erdoğan isn't a friend of Putin, there is historic enmity between Russia and Turkey, Turkey has sent weapons to Ukraine too, especially drones. Just he also wants to control the Kurds. He is the main NATO nation in the Middle East
It's far too early to say on this. Turkey's policy seems to be in flux for the moment, and he's in regular contact with the Russians outside NATO auspices.
No, I think we can say that Erdoğan isn't a friend of Putin. Like, he isn't going to help him at Turkey's cost. Erdoğan iis just deciding how much if at all he's prepared to hurt Turkey to help Ukraine against Russia.
The problem is that this may underestimate domestic changes in Turkey. Erdogan has been been gradually building, Putin-style, a large audience for historically revisionist and anti-western expansionism at home, who cheer on his every threat in the Aegean, Syria and Central Asia. This has gone largely unnoticed in the Western press, and now with a social crisis and hyperinflation, I think the question is more how far will he choose to act more and more obviously on a publicly anti-Western aggressive basis, in partial concert with Russia, than how much he will directly help Russia.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
Only if NATO think they can rely upon Turkey, when push comes to shove.
Under Erdogan that is looking increasingly unlikely. If Erdogan is no friend of NATO nations, and is a friend of Putin, then would he come to the aid of NATO if Article 5 was invoked? It isn't looking likely right now.
Erdoğan isn't a friend of Putin, there is historic enmity between Russia and Turkey, Turkey has sent weapons to Ukraine too, especially drones. Just he also wants to control the Kurds. He is the main NATO nation in the Middle East
It's far too early to say on this. Turkey's policy seems to be in flux for the moment, and he's in regular contact with the Russians outside NATO auspices.
Erdogan is doing what Erdogan has always done (and Turkey has historically done): playing west versus east to get the best 'deal' for Turkey. He is facing great pressures at home at the moment, and it seems he is thinking that smashing the Kurds will play well with his home audience.
I don't think he'll jump fully either way: he gains too much from the west to ally with Russia, and gains a fair bit from eastwards contact with Russia, China and the ME. He'll continue straddling the fence.
Speaking of drones, I haven't seen much footage of either I. Bayraktar strikes (From the Ukr side) or ii. Downed bayraktars (From the Russian side)
Are they till in theatre ?
Russia seems to have stepped up it's anti-drone game (And be using drones of their own) since the absolute monstering they took northwest of Киї(e)в in the early days.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
It really is not. Just before this war began, Nick was going on about how the US and UK warning that Russia was going to invade Ukraine as wrong, as it might 'poke' Russia into the war.
It was bullshit (I believe Nick has since moderated his position). He also later went on about how we guaranteed Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards. Which appears not only to be wrong, but immoral as it gives Russia a great deal of power over their (in the minds) vassal states.
Those states are independent (yes, Russia Duma, even Lithuania). It should be up to them to decide - especially when they have a country near them acting as Russia is.
I am perfectly willing to listen to people who want to highlight any solution to this mess. I also hope they're willing to listen to why forcing Ukraine to give up territory (again) is a really bad idea in the medium and long term. But they rarely do.
When, previous to the invasion, we were discussing Imperialism, it was interesting to see who was uncomfortable with the idea that modern Russia and China are explicitly imperialist and following a long history of imperialism in both countries.
2 pence on the higher rate of income tax and fuel duty to nil.
How would that affect the nation's finances ?
I doubt it's enough given that it needs to raise £25bn - but I can't find out enough details about the 40% and above bands to give you an accurate answer.
I suspect it would need to be 44p rather than 40p.
We also have the bizarre position that we pay VAT on the duty part of the price as well, tax on tax. So a 50p a litre cut in duty means a 10p cut in VAT as well.
"Turkey is among the countries continuing to buy grain that Russia stole from Ukraine, Kyiv's ambassador to Ankara said today.
Ambassador Vasyl Bodnar also told reporters he has sought help from Turkish authorities and Interpol to investigate who is involved in the shipments of grains transiting Turkish waters."
Turkey will continue to buy Russian grain, or it's population would err.. starve.
Has Turkey began (Continued) it's Northern Syria invasion, or is it only Russian landgrabs that bother us these days ?
They're conferring with the Russians about it at the moment. It's a crucial test of how close or not they will become, I think.
I note Turkey wants full selling out of the kurds as it's price for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Yes, and I can't see either Washington or Finland and Sweden agreeing to this. They're also making a whole list of other maximalist demands.
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
In a forced choice between Finland/Sweden and Turkey NATO will choose Turkey due to a) geography and b) 400,000 strong armed forces of heavily armed fuckers.
Only if NATO think they can rely upon Turkey, when push comes to shove.
Under Erdogan that is looking increasingly unlikely. If Erdogan is no friend of NATO nations, and is a friend of Putin, then would he come to the aid of NATO if Article 5 was invoked? It isn't looking likely right now.
Erdoğan isn't a friend of Putin, there is historic enmity between Russia and Turkey, Turkey has sent weapons to Ukraine too, especially drones. Just he also wants to control the Kurds. He is the main NATO nation in the Middle East
It's far too early to say on this. Turkey's policy seems to be in flux for the moment, and he's in regular contact with the Russians outside NATO auspices.
Erdogan is doing what Erdogan has always done (and Turkey has historically done): playing west versus east to get the best 'deal' for Turkey. He is facing great pressures at home at the moment, and it seems he is thinking that smashing the Kurds will play well with his home audience.
I don't think he'll jump fully either way: he gains too much from the west to ally with Russia, and gains a fair bit from eastwards contact with Russia, China and the ME. He'll continue straddling the fence.
But I might be wrong...
I also hope you're right, but I would say keep an eye on the Putinist Neo-Ottoman climate that he's been nurturing in Turkey. Historical revisionism mixed with modern anti-Westernism.
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
I don't think there is a solution other than a total Ukrainian victory. Anything else just leads to a resumption of hostilities at some point int he future when Russia tries to conquer more territory.
It might be that the best route to a Ukrainian victory is via a de facto ceasefire, during which the Ukrainian armed forces can be supplied with more NATO equipment and trained to use it, so that they can win round 3, but that's different from the delusion that there is a durable peace settlement with Russia that involves ceding territory. That only feeds Russian expansionist ambitions.
I can't see how there can be a total Ukrainian victory against a much larger power. That could only happen with the fall of Putin, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, at least not for some considerable length of time.
If Ukraine has the military industry of the West behind it then which side has the greater power?
Of course Ukraine can win.
Then why hasn't it already done so? What will change over the next 1-12 weeks that will all of a sudden make the West do X? And what is X?
As discussed it's not clear that Ukraine does have the full backing of the West's military industry. It's mostly been provided with surplus and/or obsolete kit. It will take time to transition the Ukraine armed forces from Soviet era equipment to NATO standard. So you would expect the balance of forces to change as Ukraine makes that transition, and the large Russian stocks of equipment are eroded.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
So why do you think it hasn't already done so?
They have given quite a lot already, but I suspect they would have wanted to give too much too soon in case Ukraine wasn't able to use it then it fell into Putin's hands.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
So do you think we will see a decisive increase in the West's aid to Ukraine in the terms you (and @LostPassword ) describe?
I certainly hope so. I have confidence that Boris and Truss will be pushing for it, so that's good at least. I have absolutely no confidence in Macron and Scholz and we should discount them entirely. Eastern Europe are very keen to help which is important logistically.
The question is Biden. Had Trump been in power, then no chance. Had Reagan been in power, then definitely. But Biden, I am not certain about Biden he is the variable, I think he will be happy to do a decisive increase since he's got Ukraine and the UK and Eastern Europe pushing for it too.
I can't see why Biden wouldn't be satisfied with the status quo. Grinding long haul war with ground given and taken, wearing down the Russian resources. I read an article (didn't we all) that said Russia wanted to secure energy supplies and would satisfy itself once achieved.
That's a rather cynical view I must say! Far better to give the support to a pro western country right now, try to get a decisive Russian defeat and permanently undermine the ethnonationalists in the Kremlin.
The Russian position in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia looks very vulnerable. I also wouldn't rule out partisan activity in Donetsk and Lukansk given the way that men from there appear to be conscripted to fight and thrown into the meat grinder without proper kit.
Wasn''t there a row about the Tories doing. just that in, I think, 2015?
Yes. For the Rochester by-election
When the Tories main opponents were UKIP so the other opposition parties turned a blind eye in the campaign
I don't understand that post. Are you suggesting the Tories would break the election expenses rules if their opponents weren't watching them?
Not that that would work because anyone can inspect their return and it is checked. You would easily get away with a technical breach but not missing off a coach hire. I was always scrupulously honest and would declare stuff that probably wouldn't need declaring just to be on the safe side. We would always check our opponents if we thought there might be an issue.
Except you didn't at the time as that would have handed the seat to UKIP and your party was in government with the Tories.
Had the LDs been the Tories main opponents you would have been in full sanctimonious LD mode no doubt!
I'm sorry I have no idea what you are talking about or what your post means.
We are talking about declaring expenses. What are you talking about?
For Nick Palmer, Dura_Ace and others who think we should negotiate with Putin by giving away parts of Ukraine.
What I think "should" happen (I'll should you right through that fucking window - M. Tucker) doesn't matter at all.
What's relevant is what's possible and likely to happen. The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russians can't get to the Dneiper.
So what's likely to happen is a negotiated ceasefire along those lines that neither side has any intention of honouring in the longer term.
Yeah the whole "Nick Palmer, Dura et al Russian apologists" thing is a bizarre PB tick that sees anyone who tries to identify a possible solution which doesn't involve a complete and utter Ukraine victory as Putin's stooge.
Perhaps we should go back to twitter footage of a Russian platoon in a contact dismounting its APC to draw meaningful insight from the war.
It really is not. Just before this war began, Nick was going on about how the US and UK warning that Russia was going to invade Ukraine as wrong, as it might 'poke' Russia into the war.
It was bullshit (I believe Nick has since moderated his position). He also later went on about how we guaranteed Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards. Which appears not only to be wrong, but immoral as it gives Russia a great deal of power over their (in the minds) vassal states.
Those states are independent (yes, Russia Duma, even Lithuania). It should be up to them to decide - especially when they have a country near them acting as Russia is.
I am perfectly willing to listen to people who want to highlight any solution to this mess. I also hope they're willing to listen to why forcing Ukraine to give up territory (again) is a really bad idea in the medium and long term. But they rarely do.
The only people forcing Ukraine to give up territory is because of facts on the ground. Pretending that those facts don't exist is bizarre and untypical of PB.
People comment on the Ukraine war as though it has some predestined end whereby the forces of good overcome the bad guys.
The world is full of countries which have changed borders as a result of military engagements. Why whisper it but some have involved Great Britain if you can believe that.
The question now is whether Russia is strong enough to do the same. We shall see. But one thing we don't seem to be doing is going to war against Russia to prevent it happening.
Comments
It’s a really strange/sad/horrific story when you watch how Bashir Assad evolved from eye doctor in London to what he is now and how his wife has evolved (I say evolved but that’s the opposite of their trajectories).
I had a blank in my knowledge of Syria and it’s quite an eye opener.
What have I told you of the pros and cons be of incumbency?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-61754049
For the next GE Rejoin will not be a major party in England's policy, but after that it will be back on the agenda.
Of course Ukraine can win.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474132/amp/Whoops-CNN-mercilessly-mocked-online-mixes-Austria-Australia.html
Turkey could be on the way out of NATO.
But most importantly of all, don't forget that the inflation is itself costing the state a fortune. Wage demands are shooting up and will for the whole public sector, pensions are too and because of the bloody triple lock even if deflation hits us afterwards when prices come back down after the war, pensions won't come back down. If people don't have discretionary expenditure because of the cost to fuel then businesses close and welfare increases. If this is going to happen, it needs to happen before whichever month it is that determines pension etc increases so that the inflation rate when they go up isn't astronomical.
Finally the death of fuel duty is coming anyway, within 7.5 years its going to be illegal to buy a new petrol or diesel car. The state needs to wean itself off the teat of the golden goose of fleecing drivers to pay for the NHS etc via fuel duty anyway so a baby step towards doing that during a war is not unreasonable, especially given it will address a lot of other problems within society.
And by the way, I do not see it as an either or, just do both if there is a demand
Discipline at Eton must have been pretty slack. Imagine if Johnson was at Michaela, he'd never be out of detention.
Mind you that is maybe why I try to be polite to this day
Plus smaller powers regularly can and have defeated larger foreign forces. Afghanistan twice, once versus both USSR and once versus USA/UK etc. Vietnam. Finland versus USSR.
If Ukraine can rely upon western munitions and logistics (and that's a big if) then of course they can win the war. Whether they will is another question, but getting the munitions there is the best way to end this war with a Ukrainian victory.
Under Erdogan that is looking increasingly unlikely. If Erdogan is no friend of NATO nations, and is a friend of Putin, then would he come to the aid of NATO if Article 5 was invoked? It isn't looking likely right now.
The West will provide that support if it makes what I think is the correct judgement that it's in our interests for Ukraine to win, and win quickly, and that it is possible.
Maybe the West will not make that judgement. Nothing is certain. I think the world will be a safer place if we do.
*or maybe I am just getting old.
@Dura_Ace is quite right to ask about that. From what I can see, cautious politics prevails over military sense, until it becomes clear Ukraine are on the point of losing.
I suspect he's wrong about Ukraine being unable to retake territory - if they have the means to knock out Russian artillery.
It also doesn’t help that there have been increasing questions over the question of provocation. There have been plenty of questions about why the leaders of the Proud Boys were not getting charged while the minnows were and increasing comments about how they were FBI informants (the same thing happened in the trial in Michigan of those accused of looking to kidnap Governor Whitmer which collapsed into a sh1t show). Lo and behold, after these comments got wide publicity, charges were filed recently.
There is a growing number outside the traditional tin-foil parts that are increasingly of the view there was election fraud. Check out “2000 Mules.” I have missed it but I haven’t seen a credible, full-scale takedown of the arguments used.
Ukraine's best hope of winning is with NATO munitions and logistics.
A short war is best for Russia, the more that time passes without winning the more time Ukraine has to get NATO weaponry into position, so long as the West steps up to the plate fully.
But the west needs to give Ukraine weapons and they need to do so as soon as possible, but making sure they can safely make it to Ukraine and not fall into Russia's hands instead.
The mood is an anti-Conservative vote. The vote is going to Labour, because they are the main opposition, not because SKS has demonstrated great vision.
SKS has de-toxified the Labour party back to "European Social Democrat" mode. Mostly.
The unions leaders are quite loudly anti-Starmer as well, when they opine politically. So it will be quite hard to connect them to him.
Not that that would work because anyone can inspect their return and it is checked. You would easily get away with a technical breach but not missing off a coach hire. I was always scrupulously honest and would declare stuff that probably wouldn't need declaring just to be on the safe side. We would always check our opponents if we thought there might be an issue.
Defensive equipment to help them absorb and repel the initial shock was most important. As time goes on, different types of weaponry and logistics will surely be needed.
That said Brexit is done, and we are never going back. A future non-Johnsonian Conservative Prime Minister might row back on the Single Market and FOM. It has to be a Conservative Government that goes down that route. It cannot be another Party of Government otherwise the Daily Mail will cry "treason", and they will be clamouring for more EU based referenda on leaving the SM...again
2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that falsely claims that unnamed nonprofit organizations paid Democrat-aligned "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. D'Souza has a history of creating and spreading conspiracy theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Mules
The question is Biden. Had Trump been in power, then no chance. Had Reagan been in power, then definitely. But Biden, I am not certain about Biden he is the variable, I think he will be happy to do a decisive increase since he's got Ukraine and the UK and Eastern Europe pushing for it too.
As noted scholar of international relations, Tiken Jah Fakoly observed.
The whole of human history if one of violent conquest. If you can take it and keep it then it's yours. I wouldn't have thought any Englishman would have to have that spelled out to them.
This package hasn't had much time to kick in yet - note the supply of heavy SAMs and artillery being included in this.
The military aid component of this, alone, is a substantial proportion of the entire conventional military spending of Russia.
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/19/nato-finland-sweden-military-might
"The number of active military personnel in the Finnish Defence Forces is a modest 23,000, but the country boasts a wartime strength of 280,000 because of its massive conscription system. A total of 900,000 Finnish reservists can be mobilized — a product of the deep-seated focus on security in a country that shares an 800-mile border with Russia, and was twice invaded in the 20th century."
Or are you suggesting we should just get on with the Second British Empire?
I have my doubts as to whether Ukraine can maintain a long war. Both economies are suffering major disruption. The Ukrainian grain harvest has very limited means of export, a quarter of the population are refugees and much of industry, workforce and logistics is now militarised. Without massive economic aid from the West, it is not sustainable for long as a high intensity war. Not that the Russians are in a much better position to continue either.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10903215/Labours-Wes-Streeting-latest-frontbencher-strikes.html
"Speaking on the BBC's Question Time last night he claimed that while he wished the strikes weren't happening, he said: 'Put it this way, if I was a member of the RMT and my job was at risk like this, then I would be voting to go on strike'. But he added that the Government must step in to broker a pay deal that will call off the industrial action."
Birbalsingh also has an excellent record of getting her pupils into Oxbridge and the Russell Group. She just said that was not the only route to social mobility eg if your parents were unemployed and you get a job
In the words of Thatcher, 'this is no time to go wobbly'.
Had the LDs been the Tories main opponents you would have been in full sanctimonious LD mode no doubt!
I am conflicted. I like her results, but her methods (which to an extent I approve) do seem to confirm to elitist Conservatives that peasants need to be disciplined in order to know their place.
It will also cement Biden's place in history with a great foreign policy achievement. All Presidents look to leave a legacy and that would be one to be proud of.
That would be worse than the situation we have now.
The only ways this ends is if Russia is defeated in Ukraine, or if Russia takes over Eastern Europe. Talks of ceasefires, of Ukraine ceding territory, are all, at best, temporary measures. Putin and Russia wants more, and anyone disregarding that is essentially ignoring their aims.
I also disagree with the conclusion that "The Ukrainians can't kick the Russians out of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts". There are various ways this might happen, and even Crimea (though admittedly that is much more complex).
The only people who can decide to cede Ukrainian territory to Russia is Ukraine. Anyone - or country - putting pressure on them to do so for a (at best) temporary peace is appeasing fascism and evil.
It's also a problem for the rest of the world for the next 18 months because chances are we've lost enough of the global food supply to have problems...
Some of the middle class parents were startled by strictness regarding uniforms, for example. The poorer parents had to point out that, in their view, this was quite important in stamping out any attempt to bring gang culture into the school.
It was bullshit (I believe Nick has since moderated his position). He also later went on about how we guaranteed Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards. Which appears not only to be wrong, but immoral as it gives Russia a great deal of power over their (in the minds) vassal states.
Those states are independent (yes, Russia Duma, even Lithuania). It should be up to them to decide - especially when they have a country near them acting as Russia is.
I am perfectly willing to listen to people who want to highlight any solution to this mess. I also hope they're willing to listen to why forcing Ukraine to give up territory (again) is a really bad idea in the medium and long term. But they rarely do.
23 million tonnes of last year's harvest unexportable, and who knows what of this year's will have consequences.
I don't think he'll jump fully either way: he gains too much from the west to ally with Russia, and gains a fair bit from eastwards contact with Russia, China and the ME. He'll continue straddling the fence.
But I might be wrong...
I. Bayraktar strikes (From the Ukr side) or
ii. Downed bayraktars (From the Russian side)
Are they till in theatre ?
Russia seems to have stepped up it's anti-drone game (And be using drones of their own) since the absolute monstering they took northwest of Киї(e)в in the early days.
Kismet, Man Of Fate, was a hero from Bomber comics in 1944. He was an Algerian Muslim living in the south of France when the Nazis invaded. He hid in the forest and came out with a fancy fez, the mind of a prophet, and fists of steel - the first Muslim Superhero!
https://web.archive.org/web/20170214045546/https://islamicommentary.org/2014/03/kismet-seventy-years-later-recognizing-the-first-genuine-muslim-superhero/
The Russian position in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia looks very vulnerable. I also wouldn't rule out partisan activity in Donetsk and Lukansk given the way that men from there appear to be conscripted to fight and thrown into the meat grinder without proper kit.
We are talking about declaring expenses. What are you talking about?
I didn't what at the time?
People comment on the Ukraine war as though it has some predestined end whereby the forces of good overcome the bad guys.
The world is full of countries which have changed borders as a result of military engagements. Why whisper it but some have involved Great Britain if you can believe that.
The question now is whether Russia is strong enough to do the same. We shall see. But one thing we don't seem to be doing is going to war against Russia to prevent it happening.