It's remarkable how indifferent people are, right across GB, to the fate of Northern Ireland.
I suspect, although as you say there is very little discussion of the subject, most people here are simply waiting for it to reunite with the rest of Ireland. Whether that will be overall to the gain of most people in Northern Ireland is a different matter; as a Remainer I of course believe that Joy will be unrestrained, but I recognise that a number of people in Northern Ireland will regret losing the link with the Crown.
That's Remainerism all over really, isn't it?
Loyalty to the EU is greater than loyalty to the Crown.
And they wonder why they anger Leavers.
I thought after I'd posted that irony doesn't come across well!
I sort of know what you mean, at some level.
Young people are ideologically internationalist, global-citizen orientated and "progressive". So the vibe is important.
Right now, a reunited Ireland, independent Scotland and Rejoining the EU all talk to that and are achingly right-on, whilst the UK and its heritage seems a bit fuddy-duddyl, so they support those causes.
But, many of them do so instinctively and indirectly, which means those sentiments could change and in unpredictable ways.
Fair comment. Instinct is a funny thing sometimes; not necessarily logical. A reunited Ireland sounds like a great idea but there are enormous practical difficulties, not least entrenched views of some of the population in the north.
The problem for anyone who is Northern Irish, Welsh or Scottish is that as they go through life there are plenty of pointers (and comments) that they will forever be 2nd class because they were not born English.
Diehard NI Unionists are "more British than the British" but that does remove the stigma and, deep down, they know that too...
2nd class citizens??? They all have their own Parliament unlike we English and elect MPs to Westminster too!!!!!
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
It's remarkable how indifferent people are, right across GB, to the fate of Northern Ireland.
Is it really? Surrendering to the IRA was unthinkable but post partition have the English ever been that interested in the place? People rarely go there, it's seen as culturally alien and the likes of Trimble and Hume have been replaced by the DUP and Sinn Fein. A party that supported the armed struggle and one that demands a bung to support the government. If English people couldn't really get worked up about Scottish independence it's hardly surprising they don't give much thought to Ulster.
I don't think people are indifferent; it's that nothing can be achieved until there is move towards the only possible solutions. It is obvious that the island needs to be one state.
Nothing the rest of the UK will help; and this is even more so now that the united intransigence of the UK, EU and RoI has made a dog's dinner of Brexit.
Ideally the islands of Britain and Ireland would be a single (non confessional) state, but sadly that ship sailed a bit ago.
I only have one strong view on NI - the govt should massively incentivise schools that have a broad mix of Catholics and Protestants. They should be the best funded state schools in the UK, and would be happy to pay for that from the rUK budget rather than NI budget.
Other than that its devolved and up to them to sort it out really.
I have one strong view on NI - abolish it.
Works for National Insurance, or Northern Ireland.
Wrong on both counts. Northern Ireland is a valued member of the UK and NI should be hypothecated to pay for the state pension and more for healthcare as it does for contributory unemployment benefits
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
I came across the following tweet, claiming a daughter came first out of all GCSE students. I know Turkey (used to?) rank all students for their equivalents of A-levels, but we don't do so for GCSEs, do we? Unless there's been a change after the Covid disruption?
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
I came across the following tweet, claiming a daughter came first out of all GCSE students. I know Turkey (used to?) rank all students for their equivalents of A-levels, but we don't do so for GCSEs, do we? Unless there's been a change after the Covid disruption?
It's remarkable how indifferent people are, right across GB, to the fate of Northern Ireland.
I suspect, although as you say there is very little discussion of the subject, most people here are simply waiting for it to reunite with the rest of Ireland. Whether that will be overall to the gain of most people in Northern Ireland is a different matter; as a Remainer I of course believe that Joy will be unrestrained, but I recognise that a number of people in Northern Ireland will regret losing the link with the Crown.
That's Remainerism all over really, isn't it?
Loyalty to the EU is greater than loyalty to the Crown.
And they wonder why they anger Leavers.
I thought after I'd posted that irony doesn't come across well!
I sort of know what you mean, at some level.
Young people are ideologically internationalist, global-citizen orientated and "progressive". So the vibe is important.
Right now, a reunited Ireland, independent Scotland and Rejoining the EU all talk to that and are achingly right-on, whilst the UK and its heritage seems a bit fuddy-duddyl, so they support those causes.
But, many of them do so instinctively and indirectly, which means those sentiments could change and in unpredictable ways.
Fair comment. Instinct is a funny thing sometimes; not necessarily logical. A reunited Ireland sounds like a great idea but there are enormous practical difficulties, not least entrenched views of some of the population in the north.
The problem for anyone who is Northern Irish, Welsh or Scottish is that as they go through life there are plenty of pointers (and comments) that they will forever be 2nd class because they were not born English.
Diehard NI Unionists are "more British than the British" but that does remove the stigma and, deep down, they know that too...
2nd class citizens??? They all have their own Parliament unlike we English and elect MPs to Westminster too!!!!!
And what a Parliament it is! Paralysed and frequently overidden by Westminster. There needs to be a mechanism to break such paralysis but no, it is easier for No.10 to allow stalemate and occasionally just impose stuff.
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
Right ok. So why would a voter care about the tax % of GDP?
Would they care about it if tax was close to 100% of GDP?
I mean that’s what I’m asking you. I want to know the reasons why people should care.
A change from 35% to 100% would imply a significant increase in the amount of tax being collected. I'm sure that would raise a few eyebrows.
Not if its coming from millionaires
Laffer Curve applies. Raise tax to 100% and how much do you think you'll raise from millionaires?
Eh? This is the opposite of the laffer curve, we’re not talking about maximising tax take, we’re talking about a situation where tax is 100% of GDP.
My point was that tax as a % of GDP means very little to the average punter. What matters is their own individual tax burden and its effect on their quality of life and feeling of own personal wealth.
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
Right ok. So why would a voter care about the tax % of GDP?
Would they care about it if tax was close to 100% of GDP?
I mean that’s what I’m asking you. I want to know the reasons why people should care.
A change from 35% to 100% would imply a significant increase in the amount of tax being collected. I'm sure that would raise a few eyebrows.
Not if its coming from millionaires
Laffer Curve applies. Raise tax to 100% and how much do you think you'll raise from millionaires?
Eh? This is the opposite of the laffer curve, we’re not talking about maximising tax take, we’re talking about a situation where tax is 100% of GDP.
My point was that tax as a % of GDP means very little to the average punter. What matters is their own individual tax burden and its effect on their quality of life and feeling of own personal wealth.
But it does matter.
If you increase tax to 100% it matters a lot to the average punter. The Laffer Curve means you get terrible revenues, so poor services for your 100%.
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
Right ok. So why would a voter care about the tax % of GDP?
Would they care about it if tax was close to 100% of GDP?
I mean that’s what I’m asking you. I want to know the reasons why people should care.
A change from 35% to 100% would imply a significant increase in the amount of tax being collected. I'm sure that would raise a few eyebrows.
Not if its coming from millionaires
But that's not what is happening. The time taken for the average person to pay their taxes each year has been creeping up for the last decade.
That’s a different statistic entirely.
But the direction is the same, so perhaps the two are correlated?
You might well be right. I was just querying the use of the tax to GDP ratio as an argument for tax policy in of itself. Especially in relation to how the average voter views tax (i.e. not in the abstract).
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
Right ok. So why would a voter care about the tax % of GDP?
Would they care about it if tax was close to 100% of GDP?
I mean that’s what I’m asking you. I want to know the reasons why people should care.
A change from 35% to 100% would imply a significant increase in the amount of tax being collected. I'm sure that would raise a few eyebrows.
Not if its coming from millionaires
Laffer Curve applies. Raise tax to 100% and how much do you think you'll raise from millionaires?
Eh? This is the opposite of the laffer curve, we’re not talking about maximising tax take, we’re talking about a situation where tax is 100% of GDP.
My point was that tax as a % of GDP means very little to the average punter. What matters is their own individual tax burden and its effect on their quality of life and feeling of own personal wealth.
But it does matter.
If you increase tax to 100% it matters a lot to the average punter. The Laffer Curve means you get terrible revenues, so poor services for your 100%.
We’re not talking about a tax rate of 100%. We’re talking of a tax take of 100% of GDP which is a measure of revenue. Although obviously tax take will never be 100% of GDP, but it wasn’t me who brought that up.
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
Right ok. So why would a voter care about the tax % of GDP?
Would they care about it if tax was close to 100% of GDP?
I mean that’s what I’m asking you. I want to know the reasons why people should care.
A change from 35% to 100% would imply a significant increase in the amount of tax being collected. I'm sure that would raise a few eyebrows.
Not if its coming from millionaires
But that's not what is happening. The time taken for the average person to pay their taxes each year has been creeping up for the last decade.
That’s a different statistic entirely.
But the direction is the same, so perhaps the two are correlated?
You might well be right. I was just querying the use of the tax to GDP ratio as an argument for tax policy in of itself. Especially in relation to how the average voter views tax (i.e. not in the abstract).
It's a convenient metric and accounts taxation as a whole over the entire economy. I suspect it would be difficult to significantly raise the tax take as a percentage of GDP without significantly increasing taxes on the average person.
I came across the following tweet, claiming a daughter came first out of all GCSE students. I know Turkey (used to?) rank all students for their equivalents of A-levels, but we don't do so for GCSEs, do we? Unless there's been a change after the Covid disruption?
Well done her. The brother publishing the photo and email address of a (presumably) 16-year-old girl on Twitter proves she is the brains of the outfit. And I hope I'm wrong about that.
Just met a billionaire friend for lunch in Notting Hill
A direct quote
“The other day i realised that the rolled up tubes of tinfoil, with which I used to smoke heroin, are exactly the same shape as my brand new private jet”
It's remarkable how indifferent people are, right across GB, to the fate of Northern Ireland.
I suspect, although as you say there is very little discussion of the subject, most people here are simply waiting for it to reunite with the rest of Ireland. Whether that will be overall to the gain of most people in Northern Ireland is a different matter; as a Remainer I of course believe that Joy will be unrestrained, but I recognise that a number of people in Northern Ireland will regret losing the link with the Crown.
That's Remainerism all over really, isn't it?
Loyalty to the EU is greater than loyalty to the Crown.
And they wonder why they anger Leavers.
I thought after I'd posted that irony doesn't come across well!
I sort of know what you mean, at some level.
Young people are ideologically internationalist, global-citizen orientated and "progressive". So the vibe is important.
Right now, a reunited Ireland, independent Scotland and Rejoining the EU all talk to that and are achingly right-on, whilst the UK and its heritage seems a bit fuddy-duddyl, so they support those causes.
But, many of them do so instinctively and indirectly, which means those sentiments could change and in unpredictable ways.
Fair comment. Instinct is a funny thing sometimes; not necessarily logical. A reunited Ireland sounds like a great idea but there are enormous practical difficulties, not least entrenched views of some of the population in the north.
The problem for anyone who is Northern Irish, Welsh or Scottish is that as they go through life there are plenty of pointers (and comments) that they will forever be 2nd class because they were not born English.
Diehard NI Unionists are "more British than the British" but that does remove the stigma and, deep down, they know that too...
2nd class citizens??? They all have their own Parliament unlike we English and elect MPs to Westminster too!!!!!
And what a Parliament it is! Paralysed and frequently overidden by Westminster. There needs to be a mechanism to break such paralysis but no, it is easier for No.10 to allow stalemate and occasionally just impose stuff.
At least they have their own parliament for much if their domestic policy even if a Conservative UK government.
If after the next general election there is a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP but England voted majority Tory, England would get policies imposed on it without even a parliament for any English domestic policy. Starmer almost certain to demand the SNP vote on English laws in return for indyref2
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
Right ok. So why would a voter care about the tax % of GDP?
Would they care about it if tax was close to 100% of GDP?
I mean that’s what I’m asking you. I want to know the reasons why people should care.
A change from 35% to 100% would imply a significant increase in the amount of tax being collected. I'm sure that would raise a few eyebrows.
Not if its coming from millionaires
But that's not what is happening. The time taken for the average person to pay their taxes each year has been creeping up for the last decade.
Hardly surprising when the richest half a million in the world (0.01% of the population) own 11% of the wealth and the world has largely given up taxing them. We just have to wait for their estates to eventually fall into the hands of philanthropists like Gates or Buffett to get the cash recycled into the productive economy.
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
Right ok. So why would a voter care about the tax % of GDP?
Would they care about it if tax was close to 100% of GDP?
I mean that’s what I’m asking you. I want to know the reasons why people should care.
A change from 35% to 100% would imply a significant increase in the amount of tax being collected. I'm sure that would raise a few eyebrows.
Not if its coming from millionaires
But that's not what is happening. The time taken for the average person to pay their taxes each year has been creeping up for the last decade.
Hardly surprising when the richest half a million in the world (0.01% of the population) own 11% of the wealth and the world has largely given up taxing them. We just have to wait for their estates to eventually fall into the hands of philanthropists like Gates or Buffett to get the cash recycled into the productive economy.
The vast majority of the paper ‘wealth’ of the richest half a million people, is theoretical wealth based on the current value of shares they hold in the companies they founded.
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Indeed, Russia wanted Crimea as its such a strategic location, but by pulling their ships and jets out they've lost that strategic advantage they wanted.
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
It does look like the enemy moved a lot of troops to Kherson, in anticipation of a summer battle there, only for the defenders to blow the bridges behind their lines, leaving them stranded and starved of resupply.
Bringing Crimea into play has also made a huge difference, the enemy’s supply lines are having to get even longer - leaving aside the political impact in Moscow, of thousands of middle-class Russian holidaymakers being rudely interrupted by military bases going on fire.
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
Incidentally, voting has already been taking place all week. Not just postal voting, but actual physical voting. The local library was busy this morning.
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
It doesn’t happen very often, so well done China for that intervention.
An unstable Putin, with his finger on the big red button, helps absolutely no-one else in the world.
Yes. Hahaha Putin. Slapped down by China. Humiliating
But nothing he can do. He is totally reliant on China for Russia’s economic future, now he has alienated all of the West
Russia will become a client state of China. A resource rich protectorate. A satrapy
Exactly the opposite of the Great Russia that Putin envisaged
It's striking how Russian talking heads seem to be in denial about this and will talk about how they are in a battle with the Anglosphere for world domination as if China doesn't exist.
It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!
'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?' https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments
Wow - that comment section really is... quite something.
Nothing remarkable, just typical Tory viewpoints.
That's the problem though - this extreme of zealots now effectively runs the country.
It's clearly time to let the Conservative Party die - it's had a good run and done some great things for the country but it's clearly outlived its usefulness and has become an appalling embarrassment.
Fold the tents, wind the party up and after a couple of decades it'll be time for a modern forward-thinking constructive movement of the centre-right which will no doubt do very well.
'Forward-thinking' tends to translate to 'People I agree with' in my experience. Given that for much of the last 20 years this country has had 'forward thinking and constructive' Governments, and even post-Brexit, the biggest challenge to the march of progressivism has been Jacob Rees Mogg leaving civil servants some notes, perhaps it's time to let the zealots have at it.
No matter how badly these idiots screw things up, there are going to be people applauding and calling for more of the same.
“It's striking how Russian talking heads seem to be in denial about this and will talk about how they are in a battle with the Anglosphere for world domination as if China doesn't exist.”
++++
Yes it’s the Dugin Thesis. Russia v Anglo-America. Eurasia v the Atlantic
It’s a load of racist Victorian great power bollocks, which assumes everyone else is inferior to the “Europeans” and can be dismissed or ignored as irrelevant. If you read Dugin on China it is basically a footnote “oh we’ll break up China and give Tibet to the Indians”
As of 2022 the Chinese economy is almost ten times bigger than Russia: $14trn v $1.4trn
That’s the same proportionately as the UK economy v Portugal
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
It's remarkable how indifferent people are, right across GB, to the fate of Northern Ireland.
Is it really? Surrendering to the IRA was unthinkable but post partition have the English ever been that interested in the place? People rarely go there, it's seen as culturally alien and the likes of Trimble and Hume have been replaced by the DUP and Sinn Fein. A party that supported the armed struggle and one that demands a bung to support the government. If English people couldn't really get worked up about Scottish independence it's hardly surprising they don't give much thought to Ulster.
I don't think people are indifferent; it's that nothing can be achieved until there is move towards the only possible solutions. It is obvious that the island needs to be one state.
Nothing the rest of the UK will help; and this is even more so now that the united intransigence of the UK, EU and RoI has made a dog's dinner of Brexit.
Ideally the islands of Britain and Ireland would be a single (non confessional) state, but sadly that ship sailed a bit ago.
I only have one strong view on NI - the govt should massively incentivise schools that have a broad mix of Catholics and Protestants. They should be the best funded state schools in the UK, and would be happy to pay for that from the rUK budget rather than NI budget.
Other than that its devolved and up to them to sort it out really.
That is the one thing both sides will never stand for - desegregating the schools. Precisely because of what it would bring.
If Putin was a cleverer man he could have leveraged Russia’s huge size and potential, and its pivotal strategic position, and played off the West against China, keeping both guessing - and paying
Like a bigger version of Erdogan
But that would have meant accepting Russia as a lesser power which needs to maneuver around others. Psychologically difficult
Instead he has to win an almost unwinnable and ruinously expensive war, just to maintain a reduced status
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Putin has to balance out how much a nuclear meltdown would give him the cover to evacuate the remnants of his army from a now economically destroyed, fall-out laden Ukraine. Job done in ending Ukraine. Versus the opprobrium it would cause Russia. Germany would probably just shrug and keep taking the gas.
(Depending on the winds, his chums in Belarus are fucked. As might be a chunk of the road to Moscow. But hey, shit happens....)
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
It's remarkable how indifferent people are, right across GB, to the fate of Northern Ireland.
I suspect, although as you say there is very little discussion of the subject, most people here are simply waiting for it to reunite with the rest of Ireland. Whether that will be overall to the gain of most people in Northern Ireland is a different matter; as a Remainer I of course believe that Joy will be unrestrained, but I recognise that a number of people in Northern Ireland will regret losing the link with the Crown.
That's Remainerism all over really, isn't it?
Loyalty to the EU is greater than loyalty to the Crown.
And they wonder why they anger Leavers.
I thought after I'd posted that irony doesn't come across well!
I sort of know what you mean, at some level.
Young people are ideologically internationalist, global-citizen orientated and "progressive". So the vibe is important.
Right now, a reunited Ireland, independent Scotland and Rejoining the EU all talk to that and are achingly right-on, whilst the UK and its heritage seems a bit fuddy-duddyl, so they support those causes.
But, many of them do so instinctively and indirectly, which means those sentiments could change and in unpredictable ways.
Fair comment. Instinct is a funny thing sometimes; not necessarily logical. A reunited Ireland sounds like a great idea but there are enormous practical difficulties, not least entrenched views of some of the population in the north.
The problem for anyone who is Northern Irish, Welsh or Scottish is that as they go through life there are plenty of pointers (and comments) that they will forever be 2nd class because they were not born English.
Diehard NI Unionists are "more British than the British" but that does remove the stigma and, deep down, they know that too...
2nd class citizens??? They all have their own Parliament unlike we English and elect MPs to Westminster too!!!!!
And what a Parliament it is! Paralysed and frequently overidden by Westminster. There needs to be a mechanism to break such paralysis but no, it is easier for No.10 to allow stalemate and occasionally just impose stuff.
At least they have their own parliament for much if their domestic policy even if a Conservative UK government.
If after the next general election there is a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP but England voted majority Tory, England would get policies imposed on it without even a parliament for any English domestic policy. Starmer almost certain to demand the SNP vote on English laws in return for indyref2
If Putin was a cleverer man he could have leveraged Russia’s huge size and potential, and its pivotal strategic position, and played off the West against China, keeping both guessing - and paying
Like a bigger version of Erdogan
But that would have meant accepting Russia as a lesser power which needs to maneuver around others. Psychologically difficult
Instead he has to win an almost unwinnable and ruinously expensive war, just to maintain a reduced status
TSMC started in Taiwan in 1987. Since then, they've managed to become a (perhaps the) major player in semiconductors. It's an amazing story.
Russia has had the finance, the intellectual knowledge, and technological base, to transform its industries post-1990. But that was the hard approach. Instead the high-ups chose to steal the money.
The money taken or stolen by the oligarchs is not just money. It is stolen *opportunities* for a better Russia.
Funny how they can pay for a large part of the workforce to do nothing for several months, and they can pay to give military support to one of the sides in a war on the other side of Europe, but they can't subsidise energy prices in Britain, or not by much.
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
It doesn’t happen very often, so well done China for that intervention.
An unstable Putin, with his finger on the big red button, helps absolutely no-one else in the world.
Yes. Hahaha Putin. Slapped down by China. Humiliating
But nothing he can do. He is totally reliant on China for Russia’s economic future, now he has alienated all of the West
Russia will become a client state of China. A resource rich protectorate. A satrapy
Exactly the opposite of the Great Russia that Putin envisaged
Putin’s going to end up as Xi’s bitch now. What a shame.
And not just for Russia. It gives China a massive petrol station to do what it likes with.
China will name the discount to be applied to Russian hydrocarbons.
And Russia will grasp its ankles and just have to take it.
Until the price he can get for that oil 'n gas is below the cost of extracting and transporting it. Then he's in a world of pain.
Especially if the embargo on spare parts for his breaking down oil and gas fields holds.
There’s apparently a February-delivered Airbus A350, that only ever made 10 revenue flights for Aeroflot, before being grounded to strip for spares for other aircraft. They retail somewhere around $300m, not that the Russians have been paying the lease company that actually owns the plane.
If Putin was a cleverer man he could have leveraged Russia’s huge size and potential, and its pivotal strategic position, and played off the West against China, keeping both guessing - and paying
Like a bigger version of Erdogan
But that would have meant accepting Russia as a lesser power which needs to maneuver around others. Psychologically difficult
Instead he has to win an almost unwinnable and ruinously expensive war, just to maintain a reduced status
TSMC started in Taiwan in 1987. Since then, they've managed to become a (perhaps the) major player in semiconductors. It's an amazing story.
Russia has had the finance, the intellectual knowledge, and technological base, to transform its industries post-1990. But that was the hard approach. Instead the high-ups chose to steal the money.
The money taken or stolen by the oligarchs is not just money. It is stolen *opportunities* for a better Russia.
It's a tragedy for the Russian people.
Yes the comparison with east Asia is unflattering for Russia, to put it mildly
South Korea now has a bigger GDP than Russia. When you compare the two for size and potential, that is extraordinary. And Russia inherited all the science and tech of the USSR - which was not negligible (Yuri Gagarin etc)
As you say, simple corruption explains so much. Russia also inherited the cronyism of the USSR
It's remarkable how indifferent people are, right across GB, to the fate of Northern Ireland.
Is it really? Surrendering to the IRA was unthinkable but post partition have the English ever been that interested in the place? People rarely go there, it's seen as culturally alien and the likes of Trimble and Hume have been replaced by the DUP and Sinn Fein. A party that supported the armed struggle and one that demands a bung to support the government. If English people couldn't really get worked up about Scottish independence it's hardly surprising they don't give much thought to Ulster.
I don't think people are indifferent; it's that nothing can be achieved until there is move towards the only possible solutions. It is obvious that the island needs to be one state.
Nothing the rest of the UK will help; and this is even more so now that the united intransigence of the UK, EU and RoI has made a dog's dinner of Brexit.
Ideally the islands of Britain and Ireland would be a single (non confessional) state, but sadly that ship sailed a bit ago.
I only have one strong view on NI - the govt should massively incentivise schools that have a broad mix of Catholics and Protestants. They should be the best funded state schools in the UK, and would be happy to pay for that from the rUK budget rather than NI budget.
Other than that its devolved and up to them to sort it out really.
That is the one thing both sides will never stand for - desegregating the schools. Precisely because of what it would bring.
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
This bit is one of the most fanciful things I have read so far on the war:
"You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas."
No way that's going to happen. Much of the Donbas has been a warzone for 8 years. The Crimea isn't even a warzone now, despite there having been a few attacks. Another important fact is that there's a base called Sevastopol at the bottom of the Crimea. Sevastopol is not going to become exclusively a Ukrainian naval base in any possible future with p>10^-6. It's never been exclusively a Ukrainian naval base at any time.
Peacefully telling the Azov Regiment they're now in the DPR and LPR and if they don't like it they can leave...while the Russians smile as they move out of Crimea and Sevastopol. Seriously, what am I reading here?
What's the probability that it's Russia shelling the Zap plant? I'd put it about p = 0.1. It's far more likely to be Ukraine doing it. And if it is, the US and its satellites don't seem very concerned. Which is scary to say the least.
The idea that the reactor buildings could stand direct shelling because they were built to withstand impact from an aircraft is probably crap. The Twin Towers were supposedly built to withstand impact from an aircraft too.
Hmm, surprised that the LDs aren't doing better from the "Unionist but too scunnered to be voting Tory any more" contingent. But subsamples. Curse of PB must not be inadvertently invoked etc.
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
This bit is one of the most fanciful things I have read so far on the war:
"You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas."
No way that's going to happen. Much of the Donbas has been a warzone for 8 years. The Crimea isn't even a warzone now, despite there having been a few attacks. Another important fact is that there's a base called Sevastopol at the bottom of the Crimea. Sevastopol is not going to become exclusively a Ukrainian naval base in any possible future with p>10^-6. It's never been exclusively a Ukrainian naval base at any time.
Peacefully telling the Azov Regiment they're now in the DPR and LPR and if they don't like it they can leave...while the Russians smile as they move out of Crimea and Sevastopol. Seriously, what am I reading here?
What's the probability that it's Russia shelling the Zap plant? I'd put it about p = 0.1. It's far more likely to be Ukraine doing it.
You do see why you get called a troll I hope. Shelling Zap would be an insane act of military violence. So is the unprovoked invasion of a neighbour. Being invaded is not. So your unsupported assertion in your final sentence looks a tiny bit suspect.
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
Apparently China's weighed in on the Zap plant issue:
It doesn’t happen very often, so well done China for that intervention.
An unstable Putin, with his finger on the big red button, helps absolutely no-one else in the world.
Yes. Hahaha Putin. Slapped down by China. Humiliating
But nothing he can do. He is totally reliant on China for Russia’s economic future, now he has alienated all of the West
Russia will become a client state of China. A resource rich protectorate. A satrapy
Exactly the opposite of the Great Russia that Putin envisaged
Putin’s going to end up as Xi’s bitch now. What a shame.
And not just for Russia. It gives China a massive petrol station to do what it likes with.
China will name the discount to be applied to Russian hydrocarbons.
And Russia will grasp its ankles and just have to take it.
Until the price he can get for that oil 'n gas is below the cost of extracting and transporting it. Then he's in a world of pain.
Especially if the embargo on spare parts for his breaking down oil and gas fields holds.
There’s apparently a February-delivered Airbus A350, that only ever made 10 revenue flights for Aeroflot, before being grounded to strip for spares for other aircraft. They retail somewhere around $300m, not that the Russians have been paying the lease company that actually owns the plane.
Typical of the Russian mentality, to use the most recent plane in the fleet as the one to strip for spares. You know, the one least likely to break down in the first place....
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
This bit is one of the most fanciful things I have read so far on the war:
"You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas."
No way that's going to happen. Much of the Donbas has been a warzone for 8 years. The Crimea isn't even a warzone now, despite there having been a few attacks. Another important fact is that there's a base called Sevastopol at the bottom of the Crimea. Sevastopol is not going to become exclusively a Ukrainian naval base in any possible future with p>10^-6. It's never been exclusively a Ukrainian naval base at any time.
Peacefully telling the Azov Regiment they're now in the DPR and LPR and if they don't like it they can leave...while the Russians smile as they move out of Crimea and Sevastopol. Seriously, what am I reading here?
What's the probability that it's Russia shelling the Zap plant? I'd put it about p = 0.1. It's far more likely to be Ukraine doing it. And if it is, the US and its satellites don't seem very concerned. Which is scary to say the least.
The idea that the reactor buildings could stand direct shelling because they were built to withstand impact from an aircraft is probably crap. The Twin Towers were supposedly built to withstand impact from an aircraft too.
When the Russian troops in the south rout, they will have foregone any roll in Crimea. Ever again.
Oh, and the location of the Russian artillery shelling Zap has been located. So my bullshit detector is going off. As is the panic one in your posting....
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
This bit is one of the most fanciful things I have read so far on the war:
"You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas."
No way that's going to happen. Much of the Donbas has been a warzone for 8 years. The Crimea isn't even a warzone now, despite there having been a few attacks. Another important fact is that there's a base called Sevastopol at the bottom of the Crimea. Sevastopol is not going to become exclusively a Ukrainian naval base in any possible future with p>10^-6. It's never been exclusively a Ukrainian naval base at any time.
Peacefully telling the Azov Regiment they're now in the DPR and LPR and if they don't like it they can leave...while the Russians smile as they move out of Crimea and Sevastopol. Seriously, what am I reading here?
What's the probability that it's Russia shelling the Zap plant? I'd put it about p = 0.1. It's far more likely to be Ukraine doing it.
You do see why you get called a troll I hope. Shelling Zap would be an insane act of military violence. So is the unprovoked invasion of a neighbour. Being invaded is not. So your unsupported assertion in your final sentence looks a tiny bit suspect.
I don't understand how the geography of the plant works - it's large and sprawling I am sure. But the Russians occupy it. So there are two Russian forces, one occupying the plant, one shelling it? Do the ones inside not object? And the best motive anyone can find for this act of nuclear self-obliteration, is to make a show of Russian ruthlessness and strength... by blaming it on the Ukrainians. This surely stretches credulity to breaking point.
Incidentally, voting has already been taking place all week. Not just postal voting, but actual physical voting. The local library was busy this morning.
Just met a billionaire friend for lunch in Notting Hill
A direct quote
“The other day i realised that the rolled up tubes of tinfoil, with which I used to smoke heroin, are exactly the same shape as my brand new private jet”
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
This bit is one of the most fanciful things I have read so far on the war:
"You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas."
No way that's going to happen. Much of the Donbas has been a warzone for 8 years. The Crimea isn't even a warzone now, despite there having been a few attacks. Another important fact is that there's a base called Sevastopol at the bottom of the Crimea. Sevastopol is not going to become exclusively a Ukrainian naval base in any possible future with p>10^-6. It's never been exclusively a Ukrainian naval base at any time.
Peacefully telling the Azov Regiment they're now in the DPR and LPR and if they don't like it they can leave...while the Russians smile as they move out of Crimea and Sevastopol. Seriously, what am I reading here?
What's the probability that it's Russia shelling the Zap plant? I'd put it about p = 0.1. It's far more likely to be Ukraine doing it.
You do see why you get called a troll I hope. Shelling Zap would be an insane act of military violence. So is the unprovoked invasion of a neighbour. Being invaded is not. So your unsupported assertion in your final sentence looks a tiny bit suspect.
I don't understand how the geography of the plant works - it's large and sprawling I am sure. But the Russians occupy it. So there are two Russian forces, one occupying the plant, one shelling it? Do the ones inside not object? And the best motive anyone can find for this act of nuclear self-obliteration, is to make a show of Russian ruthlessness and strength... by blaming it on the Ukrainians. This surely stretches credulity to breaking point.
This is the bunch that are *still* conducting recon by sending a single tank, unsupported by infantry, up the road to get shot at.
The British Army worked out that this was stupid *before* the battle of Cambrai. In 1917.
Turkey will possibly end up stronger than Russia at the conclusion of this war
Erdogan's intervention that under international law, Crimea belongs to Ukraine was a canny comment.
Much as he might piss off the US, he can still see how to play them...
He's worse than Putin, and Turkey is occupying Cyprus, and has invaded Syria to get to the Kurds.
"Turkey is occupying Cyprus"
The history of Cyprus, and the political situation there, is much more complex than "Turkey is occupying Cyprus." It runs into issues of self-determination, terrorism, coups, juntas and strongmen, and invasions.
Just met a billionaire friend for lunch in Notting Hill
A direct quote
“The other day i realised that the rolled up tubes of tinfoil, with which I used to smoke heroin, are exactly the same shape as my brand new private jet”
Incidentally, voting has already been taking place all week. Not just postal voting, but actual physical voting. The local library was busy this morning.
If the Swedish Democrats overtake the Moderates next month, then Sweden will join Italy and France as western European nations where the main centre right party has been overtaken by a populist right/far right party
Because you don't have a capital owning class stealing surplus value. Basic Marxism.
Which has never worked whenever it has been tried.
Mainly because those in power do much more stealing - and then run the interests incompetently.
Petrol is 45p/L in Iran. NIOC is 100% state owned.
Iran's economy and society is perhaps not the most optimal model for us to follow.
@hyufd would probably be impressed by the strong religious compliance.
Iran is a full on religious state, like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the Vatican City no doubt
Just trying to remember which other state has senior clerics in its legislature as an absolutely full on and basic element of its constitution. I think they might even speak English as a first language, so it can't be Thailand.
Just met a billionaire friend for lunch in Notting Hill
A direct quote
“The other day i realised that the rolled up tubes of tinfoil, with which I used to smoke heroin, are exactly the same shape as my brand new private jet”
True story
Of course it is.
It absolutely is true. I used to do heroin with him and I’ve seen his private jet. He also paid for lunch
Just met a billionaire friend for lunch in Notting Hill
A direct quote
“The other day i realised that the rolled up tubes of tinfoil, with which I used to smoke heroin, are exactly the same shape as my brand new private jet”
Turkey will possibly end up stronger than Russia at the conclusion of this war
Erdogan's intervention that under international law, Crimea belongs to Ukraine was a canny comment.
Much as he might piss off the US, he can still see how to play them...
He's worse than Putin, and Turkey is occupying Cyprus, and has invaded Syria to get to the Kurds.
"Turkey is occupying Cyprus"
The history of Cyprus, and the political situation there, is much more complex than "Turkey is occupying Cyprus." It runs into issues of self-determination, terrorism, coups, juntas and strongmen, and invasions.
@Casino_Royale genuine question, what does "taxation is at a 70-year high" actually mean? Total tax take? Average net/gross difference across the whole workforce? Adjusted for inflation?
Right ok. So why would a voter care about the tax % of GDP?
Would they care about it if tax was close to 100% of GDP?
I think the more interesting thing is share of GDP that is government spending. I was quite surprised that we are roughly the same as Sweden (which I assumed would be much larger), and significantly lower than France.
I think we probably need to weight it for demographics, though. It doesn't really say much about political philosophy unless you take account of that.
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
This bit is one of the most fanciful things I have read so far on the war:
"You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas."
No way that's going to happen. Much of the Donbas has been a warzone for 8 years. The Crimea isn't even a warzone now, despite there having been a few attacks. Another important fact is that there's a base called Sevastopol at the bottom of the Crimea. Sevastopol is not going to become exclusively a Ukrainian naval base in any possible future with p>10^-6. It's never been exclusively a Ukrainian naval base at any time.
Peacefully telling the Azov Regiment they're now in the DPR and LPR and if they don't like it they can leave...while the Russians smile as they move out of Crimea and Sevastopol. Seriously, what am I reading here?
What's the probability that it's Russia shelling the Zap plant? I'd put it about p = 0.1. It's far more likely to be Ukraine doing it.
You do see why you get called a troll I hope. Shelling Zap would be an insane act of military violence. So is the unprovoked invasion of a neighbour. Being invaded is not. So your unsupported assertion in your final sentence looks a tiny bit suspect.
I don't understand how the geography of the plant works - it's large and sprawling I am sure. But the Russians occupy it. So there are two Russian forces, one occupying the plant, one shelling it? Do the ones inside not object? And the best motive anyone can find for this act of nuclear self-obliteration, is to make a show of Russian ruthlessness and strength... by blaming it on the Ukrainians. This surely stretches credulity to breaking point.
This is the bunch that are *still* conducting recon by sending a single tank, unsupported by infantry, up the road to get shot at.
The British Army worked out that this was stupid *before* the battle of Cambrai. In 1917.
I agree that they're stupid. I think worse than that, hiding your artillery (probably because the dumps keep being blown up) in a nuclear power plant is criminally dangerous. Worse than using a hospital or school, by orders of magnitude. However, let's not tie ourselves in absolute knots to imply that they're shelling themselves in there.
"UK science superpower claim is ‘bollocks’, says Kate Bingham" "The leader of Britain’s successful Covid vaccination programme has accused health officials of dismantling a critically important database, set up to aid Covid vaccine trials, when it could be used for other vital medical research programmes.
“All this talk about the UK becoming a serious science superpower is bollocks,” Dame Kate Bingham told the Observer. “These people don’t actually care. If you really want to make our clinical research strong, you don’t start dismantling what’s been put in place.”"
Because you don't have a capital owning class stealing surplus value. Basic Marxism.
Which has never worked whenever it has been tried.
Mainly because those in power do much more stealing - and then run the interests incompetently.
Petrol is 45p/L in Iran. NIOC is 100% state owned.
Iran's economy and society is perhaps not the most optimal model for us to follow.
@hyufd would probably be impressed by the strong religious compliance.
Iran is a full on religious state, like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the Vatican City no doubt
Just trying to remember which other state has senior clerics in its legislature as an absolutely full on and basic element of its constitution. I think they might even speak English as a first language, so it can't be Thailand.
Church of England Bishops are less than 5% of the membership of the House of Lords. We do not directly base our laws on the Bible as the Vatican City does or the Koran as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan do
It's remarkable how indifferent people are, right across GB, to the fate of Northern Ireland.
Is it really? Surrendering to the IRA was unthinkable but post partition have the English ever been that interested in the place? People rarely go there, it's seen as culturally alien and the likes of Trimble and Hume have been replaced by the DUP and Sinn Fein. A party that supported the armed struggle and one that demands a bung to support the government. If English people couldn't really get worked up about Scottish independence it's hardly surprising they don't give much thought to Ulster.
I don't think people are indifferent; it's that nothing can be achieved until there is move towards the only possible solutions. It is obvious that the island needs to be one state.
Nothing the rest of the UK will help; and this is even more so now that the united intransigence of the UK, EU and RoI has made a dog's dinner of Brexit.
Ideally the islands of Britain and Ireland would be a single (non confessional) state, but sadly that ship sailed a bit ago.
I only have one strong view on NI - the govt should massively incentivise schools that have a broad mix of Catholics and Protestants. They should be the best funded state schools in the UK, and would be happy to pay for that from the rUK budget rather than NI budget.
Other than that its devolved and up to them to sort it out really.
I have one strong view on NI - abolish it.
Works for National Insurance, or Northern Ireland.
Wrong on both counts. Northern Ireland is a valued member of the UK and NI should be hypothecated to pay for the state pension and more for healthcare as it does for contributory unemployment benefits
The combination of the triple lock and an ageing population means that the State Pension is - mechanically - going to from just under 8% of GDP in 2020 to 12% of GDP in 2030.
If *all* of the cost of pensions, and (say) 50% of the cost of the NHS were to be put on NI, it would mean that it would need to raise the equivalent of 18% of GDP by 2030.
Bear in mind that NI only falls on the first part of people's incomes, and only on workers. If we wanted to extract 18% of GDP from that portion of peoples' pockets, well... let me put it like this... I wouldn't to be the government that implemented it.
"UK science superpower claim is ‘bollocks’, says Kate Bingham" "The leader of Britain’s successful Covid vaccination programme has accused health officials of dismantling a critically important database, set up to aid Covid vaccine trials, when it could be used for other vital medical research programmes.
“All this talk about the UK becoming a serious science superpower is bollocks,” Dame Kate Bingham told the Observer. “These people don’t actually care. If you really want to make our clinical research strong, you don’t start dismantling what’s been put in place.”"
Turkey will possibly end up stronger than Russia at the conclusion of this war
Erdogan's intervention that under international law, Crimea belongs to Ukraine was a canny comment.
Much as he might piss off the US, he can still see how to play them...
He's worse than Putin, and Turkey is occupying Cyprus, and has invaded Syria to get to the Kurds.
"Turkey is occupying Cyprus"
The history of Cyprus, and the political situation there, is much more complex than "Turkey is occupying Cyprus." It runs into issues of self-determination, terrorism, coups, juntas and strongmen, and invasions.
It's an ongoing tragedy that the Greek Cypriots did not accept Annan's peace plan in the early 2000s.
Wow.
You do realise you just put a match to all your moral posturing over Ukraine right?
Jeez.
Why? I did not say Turkey was in the right *at all* wrt Cyprus - just that it's a massively complex situation. I'm a fairly firm supporter of *fair* self-determination - in Scotland, Catalonia, or elsewhere. But it has to be *fair*, and that's where the complications in Cyprus, Crimea, the Donbass or East Timor occur.
Why don't you just go back to believing the Ukrainians shot down MH17?
Do you now agree with the official Dutch report, or are you still shilling for Russia?
Ukraine had been saying for a while that August would be a key month. I thought a major counteroffensive in Kherson was a better than 50/50 chance. So what happened? Russia decided to move a lot of troops there presumably in order to stop it. That may have worked. However the problem for them is that they now have a much bigger army in a vulnerable position west of the Dnieper who will be difficult to supply.
August has been spent by Ukraine using HIMARS to deadly effect. The Russians are lobbing 80,000 shells a day into Ukraine, but the Ukrainian spirit hasn't broken. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have used what, a dozen HIMARS? With those, they have smashed strategic bridges so that they will be unusable for reinforcement/resupply. And dropped shells on a sixpence on ammo dumps, command centres, barracks. But perhaps the biggest event in August has been to show that not only is Crimea not a safe haven - Ukraine is determined to see its return. You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas. But for Putin to lose 70,000 troops whilst losing Crimea would be a huge defeat. Which is what is needed. It also makes Russians ask "If we haven't got Crimea, why do we need to lose tens of thousands more for the southern land bridge to it?
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
Putin’s brinkmanship over the Zap nuke power plant does suggest a certain desperation on the Russian side
Fingers x’d you’re right
This bit is one of the most fanciful things I have read so far on the war:
"You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas."
No way that's going to happen. Much of the Donbas has been a warzone for 8 years. The Crimea isn't even a warzone now, despite there having been a few attacks. Another important fact is that there's a base called Sevastopol at the bottom of the Crimea. Sevastopol is not going to become exclusively a Ukrainian naval base in any possible future with p>10^-6. It's never been exclusively a Ukrainian naval base at any time.
Peacefully telling the Azov Regiment they're now in the DPR and LPR and if they don't like it they can leave...while the Russians smile as they move out of Crimea and Sevastopol. Seriously, what am I reading here?
What's the probability that it's Russia shelling the Zap plant? I'd put it about p = 0.1. It's far more likely to be Ukraine doing it.
You do see why you get called a troll I hope. Shelling Zap would be an insane act of military violence. So is the unprovoked invasion of a neighbour. Being invaded is not. So your unsupported assertion in your final sentence looks a tiny bit suspect.
I don't understand how the geography of the plant works - it's large and sprawling I am sure. But the Russians occupy it. So there are two Russian forces, one occupying the plant, one shelling it? Do the ones inside not object? And the best motive anyone can find for this act of nuclear self-obliteration, is to make a show of Russian ruthlessness and strength... by blaming it on the Ukrainians. This surely stretches credulity to breaking point.
This is the bunch that are *still* conducting recon by sending a single tank, unsupported by infantry, up the road to get shot at.
The British Army worked out that this was stupid *before* the battle of Cambrai. In 1917.
I agree that they're stupid. I think worse than that, hiding your artillery (probably because the dumps keep being blown up) in a nuclear power plant is criminally dangerous. Worse than using a hospital or school, by orders of magnitude. However, let's not tie ourselves in absolute knots to imply that they're shelling themselves in there.
The latest problem related to a forest fire. Given the number of shorts, failed launches etc we have seen from *Russian sources* from their rocket artillery, it’s not too hard to imagine an oppsie….
Turkey will possibly end up stronger than Russia at the conclusion of this war
Erdogan's intervention that under international law, Crimea belongs to Ukraine was a canny comment.
Much as he might piss off the US, he can still see how to play them...
He's worse than Putin, and Turkey is occupying Cyprus, and has invaded Syria to get to the Kurds.
"Turkey is occupying Cyprus"
The history of Cyprus, and the political situation there, is much more complex than "Turkey is occupying Cyprus." It runs into issues of self-determination, terrorism, coups, juntas and strongmen, and invasions.
It's an ongoing tragedy that the Greek Cypriots did not accept Annan's peace plan in the early 2000s.
Wow.
You do realise you just put a match to all your moral posturing over Ukraine right?
Jeez.
Why? I did not say Turkey was in the right *at all* wrt Cyprus - just that it's a massively complex situation. I'm a fairly firm supporter of *fair* self-determination - in Scotland, Catalonia, or elsewhere. But it has to be *fair*, and that's where the complications in Cyprus, Crimea, the Donbass or East Timor occur.
Why don't you just go back to believing the Ukrainians shot down MH17?
Do you now agree with the official Dutch report, or are you still shilling for Russia?
"UK science superpower claim is ‘bollocks’, says Kate Bingham" "The leader of Britain’s successful Covid vaccination programme has accused health officials of dismantling a critically important database, set up to aid Covid vaccine trials, when it could be used for other vital medical research programmes.
“All this talk about the UK becoming a serious science superpower is bollocks,” Dame Kate Bingham told the Observer. “These people don’t actually care. If you really want to make our clinical research strong, you don’t start dismantling what’s been put in place.”"
Comments
I came across the following tweet, claiming a daughter came first out of all GCSE students. I know Turkey (used to?) rank all students for their equivalents of A-levels, but we don't do so for GCSEs, do we? Unless there's been a change after the Covid disruption?
https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1563241135799078913
https://twitter.com/jbrowder1/status/1563225744079171586?s=20&t=h3rq1DcA-01Rkj7El6kTQA
My point was that tax as a % of GDP means very little to the average punter. What matters is their own individual tax burden and its effect on their quality of life and feeling of own personal wealth.
If you increase tax to 100% it matters a lot to the average punter. The Laffer Curve means you get terrible revenues, so poor services for your 100%.
A direct quote
“The other day i realised that the rolled up tubes of tinfoil, with which I used to smoke heroin, are exactly the same shape as my brand new private jet”
True story
If after the next general election there is a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP but England voted majority Tory, England would get policies imposed on it without even a parliament for any English domestic policy. Starmer almost certain to demand the SNP vote on English laws in return for indyref2
That Russia has moved most of its jets out of Crimea is a huge win this month for Ukraine. For the big push southwards, that retreat plus the inability of the Russians to resupply Kherson - they really couldn't have asked for more.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151793/Ukrainian-traitor-official-switched-sides-Russians-puppet-republic-assassinated.html
Bringing Crimea into play has also made a huge difference, the enemy’s supply lines are having to get even longer - leaving aside the political impact in Moscow, of thousands of middle-class Russian holidaymakers being rudely interrupted by military bases going on fire.
Fingers x’d you’re right
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/china-putin-russian-roulette-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-ukraine-disaster-near-miss-russia-1818988
Ulf Kristersson has made an immense strategic blunder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Swedish_general_election
https://www.dn.se/sverige/dn-ipsos-moderaterna-tappar-stort-sd-nast-storst/
Incidentally, voting has already been taking place all week. Not just postal voting, but actual physical voting. The local library was busy this morning.
An unstable Putin, with his finger on the big red button, helps absolutely no-one else in the world.
The police removing lesbians from a pride parade.
https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1563496337374453765
But nothing he can do. He is totally reliant on China for Russia’s economic future, now he has alienated all of the West
Russia will become a client state of China. A resource rich protectorate. A satrapy
Exactly the opposite of the Great Russia that Putin envisaged
She's more of a Burnhamite.
https://twitter.com/itsdaibhi/status/1563247483387383808?s=21&t=CEUt7s28uugEgz4EXgFTeQ
SNP 53%
SLab 26%
SCon 11%
SLD 5%
Grn 2%
Ref 1%
oth 1%
It is now ranked 144th.
That decline also included a disastrous foreign expedition, aimed at arresting their decline.
“It's striking how Russian talking heads seem to be in denial about this and will talk about how they are in a battle with the Anglosphere for world domination as if China doesn't exist.”
++++
Yes it’s the Dugin Thesis. Russia v Anglo-America. Eurasia v the Atlantic
It’s a load of racist Victorian great power bollocks, which assumes everyone else is inferior to the “Europeans” and can be dismissed or ignored as irrelevant. If you read Dugin on China it is basically a footnote “oh we’ll break up China and give Tibet to the Indians”
As of 2022 the Chinese economy is almost ten times bigger than Russia: $14trn v $1.4trn
That’s the same proportionately as the UK economy v Portugal
"That's Disgusting! Why does everyone have it in for Nicola sturgeon because she dared to be different? She decided to tell the truth and not lie?"
The only way you can think Sturgeon isn't a liar is if you accept her memory failures demonstrate terminal stages of Alzheimers....
(Former colleague's Brazilian gay husband thought lesbianism was appalling.... Takes all sorts.)
Like a bigger version of Erdogan
But that would have meant accepting Russia as a lesser power which needs to maneuver around others. Psychologically difficult
Instead he has to win an almost unwinnable and ruinously expensive war, just to maintain a reduced status
And Russia will grasp its ankles and just have to take it.
(Depending on the winds, his chums in Belarus are fucked. As might be a chunk of the road to Moscow. But hey, shit happens....)
Russia has had the finance, the intellectual knowledge, and technological base, to transform its industries post-1990. But that was the hard approach. Instead the high-ups chose to steal the money.
The money taken or stolen by the oligarchs is not just money. It is stolen *opportunities* for a better Russia.
It's a tragedy for the Russian people.
Much as he might piss off the US, he can still see how to play them...
South Korea now has a bigger GDP than Russia. When you compare the two for size and potential, that is extraordinary. And Russia inherited all the science and tech of the USSR - which was not negligible (Yuri Gagarin etc)
As you say, simple corruption explains so much. Russia also inherited the cronyism of the USSR
"You could perhaps down the line see a possible settlement where Ukraine gets Crimea, Russia gets the Donbas."
No way that's going to happen. Much of the Donbas has been a warzone for 8 years. The Crimea isn't even a warzone now, despite there having been a few attacks. Another important fact is that there's a base called Sevastopol at the bottom of the Crimea. Sevastopol is not going to become exclusively a Ukrainian naval base in any possible future with p>10^-6. It's never been exclusively a Ukrainian naval base at any time.
Peacefully telling the Azov Regiment they're now in the DPR and LPR and if they don't like it they can leave...while the Russians smile as they move out of Crimea and Sevastopol. Seriously, what am I reading here?
What's the probability that it's Russia shelling the Zap plant? I'd put it about p = 0.1. It's far more likely to be Ukraine doing it. And if it is, the US and its satellites don't seem very concerned. Which is scary to say the least.
The idea that the reactor buildings could stand direct shelling because they were built to withstand impact from an aircraft is probably crap. The Twin Towers were supposedly built to withstand impact from an aircraft too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/aug/20/fears-over-chinas-access-to-genetic-data-of-uk-citizens
someone finds sort of chicken bones in the back garden ...
I'd had it as a foregone conclusion that she'd win this on second preference but now....
I reckon she is still favourite but it will be far tighter than I thought.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1563500242900660224
He hasn’t invaded Bulgaria and killed 150,000 people. As far as I know
Oh, and the location of the Russian artillery shelling Zap has been located. So my bullshit detector is going off. As is the panic one in your posting....
The British Army worked out that this was stupid *before* the battle of Cambrai. In 1917.
"Despite gadding about the place with decreasing coherence like the principal of a deranged hen do, Truss is not going to enjoy a honeymoon."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trusss-ideas-are-daft-and-incoherent-dont-expect-her-to-stick-to-them-lw0gxmsdv
The history of Cyprus, and the political situation there, is much more complex than "Turkey is occupying Cyprus." It runs into issues of self-determination, terrorism, coups, juntas and strongmen, and invasions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cyprus#Modern_Cyprus
It's an ongoing tragedy that the Greek Cypriots did not accept Annan's peace plan in the early 2000s.
You do realise you just put a match to all your moral posturing over Ukraine right?
Jeez.
Best to go back to 2019:
"UK science superpower claim is ‘bollocks’, says Kate Bingham"
"The leader of Britain’s successful Covid vaccination programme has accused health officials of dismantling a critically important database, set up to aid Covid vaccine trials, when it could be used for other vital medical research programmes.
“All this talk about the UK becoming a serious science superpower is bollocks,” Dame Kate Bingham told the Observer. “These people don’t actually care. If you really want to make our clinical research strong, you don’t start dismantling what’s been put in place.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/aug/27/kate-bingham-ex-vaccine-chief-covid-uk-science-superpower
If *all* of the cost of pensions, and (say) 50% of the cost of the NHS were to be put on NI, it would mean that it would need to raise the equivalent of 18% of GDP by 2030.
Bear in mind that NI only falls on the first part of people's incomes, and only on workers. If we wanted to extract 18% of GDP from that portion of peoples' pockets, well... let me put it like this... I wouldn't to be the government that implemented it.
Why don't you just go back to believing the Ukrainians shot down MH17?
Do you now agree with the official Dutch report, or are you still shilling for Russia?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5c471bdc-2564-11ed-83fa-560ae4fda953
Exhibit one, from today's FT:
And from Matt Chorley in the Times:
They're not wrong, are they?