The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You seem to be doing ok given it's not allowed.
Unlike you I am less worried about what people think of me.
Unless of course you are straining to project a 'not bothered' identity because you are, in fact, bothered.
But seriously, I don't know what you're moaning about on this one. We're not short of 'it's complicated' and 'a settlement is preferable to war' sentiment on here viz Russia v Ukraine.
There's several posters who regularly make points along those lines.
And there are several posters on here who are quick to make charges of being a Putin apologist during such discussions is what interests me.
Ah ok, well it is indeed pathetic if that happens when all someone is wanting to do is drill a bit deeper into the causes of the conflict than 'Mad Bad Vlad Putin' - although this does explain much of it imo.
But anyway I see you're having a nice little debate with Nigel now, with none of that going on, so all good.
Your point on Iraq btw? I don't like 'set a precedent' - that's not quite it imo - but what I'd definitely say is it cost lots of moral capital which, if we had it back, would come in very useful right now.
Funnily enough, by invoking morality you are thereby imo implicitly making a moral equivalence between the two actions which could, from a distance, if you are squinting, be seen as justification, of all things.
I am making no comments on the morality of the actions (although I have a view of course) - just that one of the actions likely had an impression on the protagonist of the other action.
So no other comments on the Gove to edit The Times and a pending Surrey Heath Byelection rumour?
What’s to say, except that the UK has long been governed by a politico-media complex.
Though had Gove stuck to being a journalist, firing radical ideas into the sky for the government to adopt or ignore, he might well have done as much good, and considerably less harm, for society than he has.
I think a Johnson return is terrifyingly plausible.
Liz either crushes him, or he will destroy his third Tory PM running (fourth, if you include hisself).
Drive a stake through his heart, douse the corpse in petrol, stick a match on it, place the ashes in a casket enclosed in reinforced concrete and drop it in the Marianas Trench. We'll be safe then.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
I think it's important to avoid complete equivalence between Putin's invasion and Iraq 2003. The latter was probably illegal, caused huge amounts of suffering and was a geopolitical failure by the West. I was against it from the off. But it wasn't a war of conquest on a democratic state launched with the express intention of wiping out the invaded country's nationhood and accompanied by mass rape, deliberate targeting of civilians and the complete destruction of entire cities. There are degrees of outrageousness in international affairs and the Ukraine invasion is a notch or two beyond even Iraq.
Yeah as I said I'm sure the likely hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis appreciate the distinction. It was a war of aggression for which there were no consequences.
Was the big takeaway.
I don't think there's any reason to think that Putin's Russia would be a good neighbour +but for+ the invasion of Iraq.
Putin thinks that the break up of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster, and wishes, if he can to reverse it. He'd still think that, even if Iraq had never been invaded. He'd point to former Yugoslavia or some other conflict as his justification.
Iraq is just the modern equivalent of Soviet leaders brushing off criticism with "In America they lynch negroes".
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
I think it's important to avoid complete equivalence between Putin's invasion and Iraq 2003. The latter was probably illegal, caused huge amounts of suffering and was a geopolitical failure by the West. I was against it from the off. But it wasn't a war of conquest on a democratic state launched with the express intention of wiping out the invaded country's nationhood and accompanied by mass rape, deliberate targeting of civilians and the complete destruction of entire cities. There are degrees of outrageousness in international affairs and the Ukraine invasion is a notch or two beyond even Iraq.
Yeah as I said I'm sure the likely hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis appreciate the distinction. It was a war of aggression for which there were no consequences.
Was the big takeaway.
I don't think there's any reason to think that Putin's Russia would be a good neighbour +but for+ the invasion of Iraq.
Putin thinks that the break up of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster, and wishes, if he can to reverse it. He'd still think that, even if Iraq had never been invaded. He'd point to former Yugoslavia or some other conflict as his justification.
Iraq is just the modern equivalent of Soviet leaders brushing off criticism with "In America they lynch negroes".
Yes I don't doubt but he will have closely observed the consequences of that invasion imo.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
It seems to me closest to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
This has a similar backstory of a country emerging from an empire.
Cyprus emerged from the Ottoman empire, established itself as an independent state but always with a sizeable minority that saw themselves as Turkish.
There were pressures among some in the Greek Cypriot majority to forge closer ties with Greece (Enosis), whereas in practice the only way to maintain peace was for Cyprus to maintain its distance from both Greece and Turkey (essentially Makarios' position).
The Turkish invasion was driven by the threat of reunion of Cyprus with Greece by forces loyal to the Greek junta.
Pro-Enosis is roughly equivalent to pro-EU in the Ukrainian context.
Although the Turks invaded, they were not wholly responsible for the situation in Cyprus.
Although the Russian invaded, they are not wholly responsible for the situation in Ukraine.
I think it is not a bad parallel, and I expect the conflict will end the same way with a de facto partitioned country.
I think the Russians are very largely responsible for the situation in Ukraine.
Had they stuck with the borders post 2014, then your comparison though seriously flawed IMO (not least because you're comparing a military coup with democratic elections as the precipitating factor), isn't a terrible one. The proportion of the Turkish population (something under 25%) isn't dissimilar to the pre-2014 pro-Russian Ukranian population, for example.
I don't see any real parallel at all with the 2022 invasion, though. That was an outright attempt to invade, dissolve and absorb an independent democratic state.
So no other comments on the Gove to edit The Times and a pending Surrey Heath Byelection rumour?
What’s to say, except that the UK has long been governed by a politico-media complex.
Though had Gove stuck to being a journalist, firing radical ideas into the sky for the government to adopt or ignore, he might well have done as much good, and considerably less harm, for society than he has.
My view is that Gove was undoubtedly a force for good in Government. One of the very few. It is a great shame though that he didn't stick to his principles and continue to try and frustrate Johnson's ambitions. That would have been his greatest service.
Vlad has a long history of poisoning any opponents. He doesn't always respond logically. His rambling one hour speech just before he invaded gave the game away, and it certainly put the wind up Finland and Sweden.
So mad, bad Vlad has something going for it. OK, mental health issues if you wish.
I think a Johnson return is terrifyingly plausible.
Liz either crushes him, or he will destroy his third Tory PM running (fourth, if you include hisself).
Drive a stake through his heart, douse the corpse in petrol, stick a match on it, place the ashes in a casket enclosed in reinforced concrete and drop it in the Marianas Trench. We'll be safe then.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
I think it's important to avoid complete equivalence between Putin's invasion and Iraq 2003. The latter was probably illegal, caused huge amounts of suffering and was a geopolitical failure by the West. I was against it from the off. But it wasn't a war of conquest on a democratic state launched with the express intention of wiping out the invaded country's nationhood and accompanied by mass rape, deliberate targeting of civilians and the complete destruction of entire cities. There are degrees of outrageousness in international affairs and the Ukraine invasion is a notch or two beyond even Iraq.
Yeah as I said I'm sure the likely hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis appreciate the distinction. It was a war of aggression for which there were no consequences.
Was the big takeaway.
I don't think there's any reason to think that Putin's Russia would be a good neighbour +but for+ the invasion of Iraq.
Putin thinks that the break up of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster, and wishes, if he can to reverse it. He'd still think that, even if Iraq had never been invaded. He'd point to former Yugoslavia or some other conflict as his justification.
Iraq is just the modern equivalent of Soviet leaders brushing off criticism with "In America they lynch negroes".
Yes I don't doubt but he will have closely observed the consequences of that invasion imo.
Well, if he'd any sense, he'd have seen that the US lost a lot of lives and money for not very much gain. If he thought that the invasion of Ukraine would turn out similarly to the invasion of Iraq, and still went ahead with it anyway, then he's a fool.
I think he thought it would turn out much better than that.
So no other comments on the Gove to edit The Times and a pending Surrey Heath Byelection rumour?
What’s to say, except that the UK has long been governed by a politico-media complex.
Though had Gove stuck to being a journalist, firing radical ideas into the sky for the government to adopt or ignore, he might well have done as much good, and considerably less harm, for society than he has.
My view is that Gove was undoubtedly a force for good in Government. One of the very few. It is a great shame though that he didn't stick to his principles and continue to try and frustrate Johnson's ambitions. That would have been his greatest service.
Priapically engorged by Brexit, and mismanaged by May, the Tory Party would have crowned Boris in 2019 whatever Gove might have said at that point.
Agree though that he was probably unwise to serve under him. From the point of view of history.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
I think it's important to avoid complete equivalence between Putin's invasion and Iraq 2003. The latter was probably illegal, caused huge amounts of suffering and was a geopolitical failure by the West. I was against it from the off. But it wasn't a war of conquest on a democratic state launched with the express intention of wiping out the invaded country's nationhood and accompanied by mass rape, deliberate targeting of civilians and the complete destruction of entire cities. There are degrees of outrageousness in international affairs and the Ukraine invasion is a notch or two beyond even Iraq.
Yeah as I said I'm sure the likely hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis appreciate the distinction. It was a war of aggression for which there were no consequences.
Was the big takeaway.
I don't think there's any reason to think that Putin's Russia would be a good neighbour +but for+ the invasion of Iraq.
Putin thinks that the break up of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster, and wishes, if he can to reverse it. He'd still think that, even if Iraq had never been invaded. He'd point to former Yugoslavia or some other conflict as his justification.
Iraq is just the modern equivalent of Soviet leaders brushing off criticism with "In America they lynch negroes".
Yes I don't doubt but he will have closely observed the consequences of that invasion imo.
Well, if he'd any sense, he'd have seen that the US lost a lot of lives and money for not very much gain. If he thought that the invasion of Ukraine would turn out similarly to the invasion of Iraq, and still went ahead with it anyway, then he's a fool.
I think he thought it would turn out much better than that.
Not 100% sure how much he cares about money or lives, both of which are in plentiful supply in Russia.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
It seems to me closest to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
This has a similar backstory of a country emerging from an empire.
Cyprus emerged from the Ottoman empire, established itself as an independent state but always with a sizeable minority that saw themselves as Turkish.
There were pressures among some in the Greek Cypriot majority to forge closer ties with Greece (Enosis), whereas in practice the only way to maintain peace was for Cyprus to maintain its distance from both Greece and Turkey (essentially Makarios' position).
The Turkish invasion was driven by the threat of reunion of Cyprus with Greece by forces loyal to the Greek junta.
Pro-Enosis is roughly equivalent to pro-EU in the Ukrainian context.
Although the Turks invaded, they were not wholly responsible for the situation in Cyprus.
Although the Russian invaded, they are not wholly responsible for the situation in Ukraine.
I think it is not a bad parallel, and I expect the conflict will end the same way with a de facto partitioned country.
I think the Russians are very largely responsible for the situation in Ukraine.
Had they stuck with the borders post 2014, then your comparison though seriously flawed IMO (not least because you're comparing a military coup with democratic elections as the precipitating factor), isn't a terrible one. The proportion of the Turkish population (something under 25%) isn't dissimilar to the pre-2014 pro-Russian Ukranian population, for example.
I don't see any real parallel at all with the 2022 invasion, though. That was an outright attempt to invade, dissolve and absorb an independent democratic state.
No parallel is exact -- I think the invasion of Cyprus is the nearest (I take your point about the military coup deposing Makarios, though).
Russia is about 75 per cent to blame.
I never believe one side is wholly good, and another side wholly bad, whatever the situation.
EXCLUSIVE: UK gas producers and electricity generators may make excess profits totalling as much as £170 billion over the next two years, according to Treasury estimates that will be handed to the next prime minister when they take office.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
I think it's important to avoid complete equivalence between Putin's invasion and Iraq 2003. The latter was probably illegal, caused huge amounts of suffering and was a geopolitical failure by the West. I was against it from the off. But it wasn't a war of conquest on a democratic state launched with the express intention of wiping out the invaded country's nationhood and accompanied by mass rape, deliberate targeting of civilians and the complete destruction of entire cities. There are degrees of outrageousness in international affairs and the Ukraine invasion is a notch or two beyond even Iraq.
Yeah as I said I'm sure the likely hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis appreciate the distinction. It was a war of aggression for which there were no consequences.
Was the big takeaway.
I don't think there's any reason to think that Putin's Russia would be a good neighbour +but for+ the invasion of Iraq.
Putin thinks that the break up of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster, and wishes, if he can to reverse it. He'd still think that, even if Iraq had never been invaded. He'd point to former Yugoslavia or some other conflict as his justification.
Iraq is just the modern equivalent of Soviet leaders brushing off criticism with "In America they lynch negroes".
Yes I don't doubt but he will have closely observed the consequences of that invasion imo.
A long bloody, expense that sapped a nations finances and will, ending in ignominious withdrawal?
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
I think it's important to avoid complete equivalence between Putin's invasion and Iraq 2003. The latter was probably illegal, caused huge amounts of suffering and was a geopolitical failure by the West. I was against it from the off. But it wasn't a war of conquest on a democratic state launched with the express intention of wiping out the invaded country's nationhood and accompanied by mass rape, deliberate targeting of civilians and the complete destruction of entire cities. There are degrees of outrageousness in international affairs and the Ukraine invasion is a notch or two beyond even Iraq.
Yeah as I said I'm sure the likely hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis appreciate the distinction. It was a war of aggression for which there were no consequences.
Was the big takeaway.
I don't think there's any reason to think that Putin's Russia would be a good neighbour +but for+ the invasion of Iraq.
Putin thinks that the break up of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster, and wishes, if he can to reverse it. He'd still think that, even if Iraq had never been invaded. He'd point to former Yugoslavia or some other conflict as his justification.
Iraq is just the modern equivalent of Soviet leaders brushing off criticism with "In America they lynch negroes".
Yes I don't doubt but he will have closely observed the consequences of that invasion imo.
Which were hugely expensive for the US, and cost them a large amount of their influence in the region.
It would be entirely fair to say that Iraq might have motivated Russia's intervention in the Syrian civil war, but nothing you've posted does anything to convince me it was a significant factor in the decision to invade Ukraine.
I suppose you could go on to argue that our lack of pushback in the Syrian adventure, and lack of response to the 2014 territorial seizures in Ukraine motivated the gamble in 2022. But accepting that logic would argue for an extremely uncompromising response from the west to the current gamble - since if you do accept that logic, then failing to make Putin regret this gamble would guarantee a repeat in the future.
The reactor design that BIll Gates and the US Energy Department are backing in Wyoming is able to store energy. (It can heat up the liquid sodium several hundred degrees above its normal operating temperature, and then use that excess heat to generate electricity later.)
It might be an especially good fit for Wyoming, where there is, to say the least, an abundance of wind power, but a lack of storage for tiems when the wind dies down. (I'd have to see a lot of numbers before I was sure about the design and Wyoming, but the idea does seem plausible.)
One solution that appears to be gaining traction in the UK for ironing out intermittency of renewable energy is compressed air battery storage. There are a couple of companies offering this now.
Its very reliable but the downside is its not that efficient, apparently.
Compressing air is a terrible solution - some quite basic physics mean that losses from heating/cooling will be a major problem.
The liquid sodium one (above) is a bit fun for my tastes.
I mentioned liquid tin earlier - because there is a robust, long running technology for keeping large quantities of molten tin around. See the glass industry. In theory, it would give you a reasonable energy density - and would be good for generating steam - see the whole steam turbine/power station industry.
I think the companies involved utilise the heat generated by the compression...bringing up the efficiency...but I am not sure how.
Does it matter how efficient it is if its all generated by renewable sources and is storable?
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
Your second point is completely different to the first. I'm not sure it is helpful to discuss the two in tandem.
I think people might look at the tepid nature of the West's response to the war in Georgia in 2008, and Ukraine itself in 2014-5, and think that was more consequential for determining Putin's response than the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
It's also worth bearing in mind that, had the Ukrainian government in Kyiv fallen, as seemed to have been expected by the West, then the nature of Western support to the ongoing Ukrainian resistance would have been much more limited. It's the success of Ukraine's resistance to the invasion that has made extensive Western military support possible. In that circumstance events may well have played out roughly as Putin expected, with only a tolerable level of opposition to his annexation of further Ukrainian territory.
So, insofar as we can conclude that Putin made a mistake with the February 24th invasion, his mistake was not in underestimating Western support for Ukraine, but in underestimating the ability and willingness of Ukraine to defend itself. Therefore the conflict is much more about Ukraine, and its struggle to free itself from Russian domination, and much less about the geopolitical mistakes made by the West in its relationship with Russia.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You seem to be doing ok given it's not allowed.
Unlike you I am less worried about what people think of me.
Unless of course you are straining to project a 'not bothered' identity because you are, in fact, bothered.
But seriously, I don't know what you're moaning about on this one. We're not short of 'it's complicated' and 'a settlement is preferable to war' sentiment on here viz Russia v Ukraine.
There's several posters who regularly make points along those lines.
And there are several posters on here who are quick to make charges of being a Putin apologist during such discussions is what interests me.
Ah ok, well it is indeed pathetic if that happens when all someone is wanting to do is drill a bit deeper into the causes of the conflict than 'Mad Bad Vlad Putin' - although this does explain much of it imo.
But anyway I see you're having a nice little debate with Nigel now, with none of that going on, so all good.
Your point on Iraq btw? I don't like 'set a precedent' - that's not quite it imo - but what I'd definitely say is it cost lots of moral capital which, if we had it back, would come in very useful right now.
Funnily enough, by invoking morality you are thereby imo implicitly making a moral equivalence between the two actions which could, from a distance, if you are squinting, be seen as justification, of all things.
I am making no comments on the morality of the actions (although I have a view of course) - just that one of the actions likely had an impression on the protagonist of the other action.
But if all you're saying is Iraq was probably a material input into the evolution of the man who decided to invade Ukraine in Feb this year - and furthermore that it probably encouraged him rather than discouraged him - I'm going to think 2 things. 1. Yep. Obvs. 2. So what?
I mean, where are you going with it? It's not a massively interesting point and neither does it seem to lead anywhere.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
It seems to me closest to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
This has a similar backstory of a country emerging from an empire.
Cyprus emerged from the Ottoman empire, established itself as an independent state but always with a sizeable minority that saw themselves as Turkish.
There were pressures among some in the Greek Cypriot majority to forge closer ties with Greece (Enosis), whereas in practice the only way to maintain peace was for Cyprus to maintain its distance from both Greece and Turkey (essentially Makarios' position).
The Turkish invasion was driven by the threat of reunion of Cyprus with Greece by forces loyal to the Greek junta.
Pro-Enosis is roughly equivalent to pro-EU in the Ukrainian context.
Although the Turks invaded, they were not wholly responsible for the situation in Cyprus.
Although the Russian invaded, they are not wholly responsible for the situation in Ukraine.
I think it is not a bad parallel, and I expect the conflict will end the same way with a de facto partitioned country.
I think the Russians are very largely responsible for the situation in Ukraine.
Had they stuck with the borders post 2014, then your comparison though seriously flawed IMO (not least because you're comparing a military coup with democratic elections as the precipitating factor), isn't a terrible one. The proportion of the Turkish population (something under 25%) isn't dissimilar to the pre-2014 pro-Russian Ukranian population, for example.
I don't see any real parallel at all with the 2022 invasion, though. That was an outright attempt to invade, dissolve and absorb an independent democratic state.
No parallel is exact -- I think the invasion of Cyprus is the nearest (I take your point about the military coup deposing Makarios, though).
Russia is about 75 per cent to blame.
I never believe one side is wholly good, and another side wholly bad, whatever the situation.
It is always much more complex.
You've also missed out the bit about Cyprus being a British colony from 1878 to 1960. It did not become independent from the Ottoman Empire.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
Your second point is completely different to the first. I'm not sure it is helpful to discuss the two in tandem.
I think people might look at the tepid nature of the West's response to the war in Georgia in 2008, and Ukraine itself in 2014-5, and think that was more consequential for determining Putin's response than the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
It's also worth bearing in mind that, had the Ukrainian government in Kyiv fallen, as seemed to have been expected by the West, then the nature of Western support to the ongoing Ukrainian resistance would have been much more limited. It's the success of Ukraine's resistance to the invasion that has made extensive Western military support possible. In that circumstance events may well have played out roughly as Putin expected, with only a tolerable level of opposition to his annexation of further Ukrainian territory.
So, insofar as we can conclude that Putin made a mistake with the February 24th invasion, his mistake was not in underestimating Western support for Ukraine, but in underestimating the ability and willingness of Ukraine to defend itself. Therefore the conflict is much more about Ukraine, and its struggle to free itself from Russian domination, and much less about the geopolitical mistakes made by the West in its relationship with Russia.
All of that seems right - except our expecting Ukraine to fall. Fair to say that the jury was out on that at the time, but it was far from a strong consensus expectation - and we had supplied both arms and training between 2014 and 2022 with the intention of making Ukraine more able to defend itself.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
It seems to me closest to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
This has a similar backstory of a country emerging from an empire.
Cyprus emerged from the Ottoman empire, established itself as an independent state but always with a sizeable minority that saw themselves as Turkish.
There were pressures among some in the Greek Cypriot majority to forge closer ties with Greece (Enosis), whereas in practice the only way to maintain peace was for Cyprus to maintain its distance from both Greece and Turkey (essentially Makarios' position).
The Turkish invasion was driven by the threat of reunion of Cyprus with Greece by forces loyal to the Greek junta.
Pro-Enosis is roughly equivalent to pro-EU in the Ukrainian context.
Although the Turks invaded, they were not wholly responsible for the situation in Cyprus.
Although the Russian invaded, they are not wholly responsible for the situation in Ukraine.
I think it is not a bad parallel, and I expect the conflict will end the same way with a de facto partitioned country.
I think the Russians are very largely responsible for the situation in Ukraine.
Had they stuck with the borders post 2014, then your comparison though seriously flawed IMO (not least because you're comparing a military coup with democratic elections as the precipitating factor), isn't a terrible one. The proportion of the Turkish population (something under 25%) isn't dissimilar to the pre-2014 pro-Russian Ukranian population, for example.
I don't see any real parallel at all with the 2022 invasion, though. That was an outright attempt to invade, dissolve and absorb an independent democratic state.
No parallel is exact -- I think the invasion of Cyprus is the nearest (I take your point about the military coup deposing Makarios, though).
Russia is about 75 per cent to blame.
I never believe one side is wholly good, and another side wholly bad, whatever the situation.
It is always much more complex.
You've also missed out the bit about Cyprus being a British colony from 1878 to 1960. It did not become independent from the Ottoman Empire.
And in the 50s British lives were lost trying to ensure it remained a colony.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
Yes... I think that is correct. I've supported the war given quite significant amounts of money to Ukraine. But the idea that the only acceptable solution is one where Ukraine 'push back' Russia to its pre 2014 borders is not that helpful. Firstly, it is unlikely to happen. Secondly if it did happen, it would be likely to precipitate a collapse in Russia with unknown political consequences. I cannot imagine, that Putin would just think 'oh, ive been beaten', apologise, submit to the prosecutions in the Hague, etc. If you think about the strategic problem; that is that Russia could realign itself with China; which is not exactly going to be good news; in the scenario where he is beaten in this way. So if you are hoping this is going to happen, then it seems like a mistake, the Ukraine "victory" may turn out to be phyrric one, and counter to our long term interests. Ultimately we should be working towards some kind of solution that guarantees Ukrainian freedom and soverignty, and also secures Russia's status as an independent power, to act as a buffer to China.
Another thread stuffed with Trump hatred. It gets quite monotonous. Leave the old guy alone FFS
What would you prefer: Aliens, Weird pseudo AI creations, Covid from the lab, or Remoaners?
Hang on, are you seriously suggesting Trump is not a pseudo AI creation produced in an alien lab?
HOLD THE PHONE
The Aliens thing explained. At last
- One group of Aliens is Woke (Vorlons) - The other group is anti-Woke (Shadows)
They have agreed to use Earth as a Battle Royale to settle the matter. Without actually appearing to us.
This explains the ludicrous nature of their technology, why the whole thing is being hidden...
It strikes me the entire debate on Meghan Markle is essentially a woke test, not that such trivialities as the wife of the 3rd spare to the throne matter in the grand scheme of things. Annoyingly wind & solar power seems to have come under this test too which means large portions of the right seem to have ruled out any of it on almost religous grounds.
My issue with wind (solar imo is a non starter in the UK apart from domestically) is that there's no serious attempt being made to store the power for times when there's no wind generation. Every so often there's an excited post on PB about clever new batteries that Tesla are making, but precisely none of it is here, now. Yet we continue to build wind capacity like it's going out of fashion. That bakes gas into the future.
One of the many things that needs fixing in our broken energy system is that we need to stop paying renewables providers NOT to provide power. How quickly would those companies build storage capacity if every time their power stopped being used, they stopped being paid?
Comments
I am making no comments on the morality of the actions (although I have a view of course) - just that one of the actions likely had an impression on the protagonist of the other action.
Putin thinks that the break up of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster, and wishes, if he can to reverse it. He'd still think that, even if Iraq had never been invaded. He'd point to former Yugoslavia or some other conflict as his justification.
Iraq is just the modern equivalent of Soviet leaders brushing off criticism with "In America they lynch negroes".
Had they stuck with the borders post 2014, then your comparison though seriously flawed IMO (not least because you're comparing a military coup with democratic elections as the precipitating factor), isn't a terrible one.
The proportion of the Turkish population (something under 25%) isn't dissimilar to the pre-2014 pro-Russian Ukranian population, for example.
I don't see any real parallel at all with the 2022 invasion, though. That was an outright attempt to invade, dissolve and absorb an independent democratic state.
So mad, bad Vlad has something going for it. OK, mental health issues if you wish.
I think he thought it would turn out much better than that.
Agree though that he was probably unwise to serve under him. From the point of view of history.
Russia is about 75 per cent to blame.
I never believe one side is wholly good, and another side wholly bad, whatever the situation.
It is always much more complex.
Bloomberg itself reported in May the Treasury was making record amounts from the oil and gas industry, even at current levels.
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1564553872915537925?s=20&t=9yt9RLKFuJpfZat6isciLQ
What lesson did he take from his observations?
It would be entirely fair to say that Iraq might have motivated Russia's intervention in the Syrian civil war, but nothing you've posted does anything to convince me it was a significant factor in the decision to invade Ukraine.
I suppose you could go on to argue that our lack of pushback in the Syrian adventure, and lack of response to the 2014 territorial seizures in Ukraine motivated the gamble in 2022.
But accepting that logic would argue for an extremely uncompromising response from the west to the current gamble - since if you do accept that logic, then failing to make Putin regret this gamble would guarantee a repeat in the future.
Does it matter how efficient it is if its all generated by renewable sources and is storable?
I think people might look at the tepid nature of the West's response to the war in Georgia in 2008, and Ukraine itself in 2014-5, and think that was more consequential for determining Putin's response than the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
It's also worth bearing in mind that, had the Ukrainian government in Kyiv fallen, as seemed to have been expected by the West, then the nature of Western support to the ongoing Ukrainian resistance would have been much more limited. It's the success of Ukraine's resistance to the invasion that has made extensive Western military support possible. In that circumstance events may well have played out roughly as Putin expected, with only a tolerable level of opposition to his annexation of further Ukrainian territory.
So, insofar as we can conclude that Putin made a mistake with the February 24th invasion, his mistake was not in underestimating Western support for Ukraine, but in underestimating the ability and willingness of Ukraine to defend itself. Therefore the conflict is much more about Ukraine, and its struggle to free itself from Russian domination, and much less about the geopolitical mistakes made by the West in its relationship with Russia.
"What lesson did he take from his observations?"
That we're a load of soft shites, to use the Scouse vernacular.
I mean, where are you going with it? It's not a massively interesting point and neither does it seem to lead anywhere.
Fair to say that the jury was out on that at the time, but it was far from a strong consensus expectation - and we had supplied both arms and training between 2014 and 2022 with the intention of making Ukraine more able to defend itself.
this thread is an ex-thread. It has rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.
I've supported the war given quite significant amounts of money to Ukraine.
But the idea that the only acceptable solution is one where Ukraine 'push back' Russia to its pre 2014 borders is not that helpful. Firstly, it is unlikely to happen. Secondly if it did happen, it would be likely to precipitate a collapse in Russia with unknown political consequences.
I cannot imagine, that Putin would just think 'oh, ive been beaten', apologise, submit to the prosecutions in the Hague, etc.
If you think about the strategic problem; that is that Russia could realign itself with China; which is not exactly going to be good news; in the scenario where he is beaten in this way.
So if you are hoping this is going to happen, then it seems like a mistake, the Ukraine "victory" may turn out to be phyrric one, and counter to our long term interests.
Ultimately we should be working towards some kind of solution that guarantees Ukrainian freedom and soverignty, and also secures Russia's status as an independent power, to act as a buffer to China.
One of the many things that needs fixing in our broken energy system is that we need to stop paying renewables providers NOT to provide power. How quickly would those companies build storage capacity if every time their power stopped being used, they stopped being paid?