Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It’s looking better for the Dems ahead of the Nov 8 Midterms – politicalbetting.com

2456789

Comments

  • kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    In best Father Ted voice, countries are countries and alliances are collections of countries, NATO being an alliance to which Germany, France.and the UK belong.:
    Collections of countries != Common European Defence Capability. In fact its literally the opposite.
  • nico679 said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Please tell me this is just some Twitter rubbish . That would be appalling , especially as Charles has been outspoken on the environment .
    I suspect the police would be less tolerant of them staying. They would probably leave some skin behind as they departed
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,887

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    You hanker for less transatlanticism in Europe?
    I wouldn't put it like that. I'm just saying what I think is the most rational defence arrangement for Europe as Russia fades and the US focuses more on China.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,746

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Against whom? I have always questioned whether Russia was a military threat (they are still a damn nuisance with cyber and with acts of terrorism like Salisbury) but the answer to this is now absolutely clear. It is no.

    So Europe either chooses to play where the action is (in the Pacific) or it chooses not to. I think all bar us will choose not and even our contribution will be pretty token. So I agree, the promise of 3% GDP will not be met and nor should it be.
    The French will want to be in the Pacific as they have territory there. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
    There are good arguments for us sharing the load between us and making it a combined squadron. But we probably won't.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    edited September 2022
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
    I agree to some extent but see the Polish (and other Eastern European) statements about Germany over Ukraine. Such a construct will need now to involve us so, I suspect, will be more about an enhanced European “wing” to NATO.

  • Foxy said:

    Meghan and Kate, side-by-side in black…

    Imagine the bitchfest.

    "She deliberately came in the same colour dress..."

    I have been admonished by Mrs P for making what were apparently inappropriate comments on their respective rear ends in tight skirts…
    . . . and the winner is . . . Kate?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,045
    pigeon said:


    Andrew Roth
    @Andrew__Roth
    Russian occupation administration in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region calling for a full evacuation. “Our army is doing all it can” but admits it can’t stop Ukraine. Stunning defeat in towns and villages where Russia told local collaborators it was there to stay.

    https://twitter.com/Andrew__Roth/status/1568624975220772864

    Russian state organs are being forced to concede the gravity of the situation.

    Residents of Izyum are being evacuated to Russia. According to Vladislav Sokolov, head of the military-civilian administration of the Izyumsky district, people "are received at the migration center, they are provided with psychological and humanitarian assistance"

    https://twitter.com/tass_agency/status/1568592651603300353

    Quite how many people will be evacuated and how many will be abducted remains to be seen. Hopefully they'll be in too much of a hurry running away to take a load of civilian captives with them.
    This sounds like one of the most dramatic "drawdowns and organised transfers" of troops in military history.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,615

    nico679 said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Please tell me this is just some Twitter rubbish . That would be appalling , especially as Charles has been outspoken on the environment .
    Partly it is indeed outrage froth, but it appears Extinctiin Rebellion themselves split on whether to 'do stuff'.
    If they want to totally destroy their brand then that would be the way to go about it . It would be a total disgrace to try and disrupt the funeral and I say this as someone whose neither a big monarchist but is sympathetic to their frustration at what’s happening to the planet . They need to stop and think and realize it would be a public relations disaster .
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
    It was founded in 1999. Nearly a quarter of a century on, how do you think it’s doing?

  • sladeslade Posts: 1,664

    biggles said:

    slade said:

    Question for our constitutional experts - now William is Prince of Wales does he continue to be Duke of Cambridge or does the title pass to George?

    He continues. Along with half a dozen he just gained from his Dad who doesn’t keep his own.
    Dad’s got Normandy to Duke over now
    and Lancaster. Rothesay?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,548
    jonny83 said:

    Omnium said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    China will be in no great hurry to do anything militarily. They're winning the new war of Empires. A failing Russian sphere will naturally fall under their auspices in the coming years.

    I doubt any superpower will want to chance its arm any time soon in doing anything militarily. Ukraine shines a light on the excuses made for VietNam, Korea, Afghanistan (x2), Iraq - superpowers aren't really what it says on the tin.

    So in many ways this should decrease defence spending as it seems rather pointless, but on the other hand if you ever actually imagine that you might want to achieve anything militarily you realise you might need to spend more.
    The Ukraine armed forces are doing a fantastic job, and it's their lives on the line. But it's Superpower level of military intelligence and equipment (largely supplied by the US) that had a significant impact here. Without that I can't see Ukraine having the level of success they are currently having.
    You're right of course. In particular it may be the case that the initial Russian offensive was countered for this very reason.
  • News out of Ukraine is fantastic but what may be way more interesting is what's happening in Moscow. Apparently the centre has been sealed off and there is talk of Putin 'exterminating' those responsible for the Kharkiv debacle. Time to open a book on Vlad's departure?
  • nico679 said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Please tell me this is just some Twitter rubbish . That would be appalling , especially as Charles has been outspoken on the environment .
    I suspect the police would be less tolerant of them staying. They would probably leave some skin behind as they departed
    Isn't it best just to leave them glued there?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,221

    Sandpit said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Do they actually want to get lynched? Because disturbing a state funeral is a really good way to go about it. They’re stupid, but not that stupid.

    Oh, I know what, let’s be idiots on the day when you can’t move in the city for armed police, spooks, and half the army. None of whom care about your human right to make an arse of yourselves.
    I think its the most radical portion only. I doubt they are that stupid
    However, it only takes one complete narcissist to cause a right commotion (see Trenton Oldfield.)
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    Russian State TV tonight should be a laugh.

    I watched on of the Pro-Russian YouTube channels a few hours ago. it was quite amusing, but not intentionally.

    What they seed:

    1) That hill they took in the Donbass is vitally impotent to be 200m closer to Papazian and will change the courses of the war.

    2) The Ukraine advance was less than 2000 strong, too week to go any further.

    3) The Russians had been clever in to value life more than territory.

    4) The Russians being so clever have a force of 14,000 troops ready for this situation and would be there soon.

    5) The Ukrainians are so stupid to attack in open ground because this will be very easy for Russian to advance and encircle them in.

    Lots of people make predictions that look silly a year latter, sometimes only months or weeks, this was about 8 hours ago.

    Cant wait till tomorrows update. LOL
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Please tell me this is just some Twitter rubbish . That would be appalling , especially as Charles has been outspoken on the environment .
    Partly it is indeed outrage froth, but it appears Extinctiin Rebellion themselves split on whether to 'do stuff'.
    If they want to totally destroy their brand then that would be the way to go about it . It would be a total disgrace to try and disrupt the funeral and I say this as someone whose neither a big monarchist but is sympathetic to their frustration at what’s happening to the planet . They need to stop and think and realize it would be a public relations disaster .
    Yes i think its only the most radical that have made calls, the general movement look like they are going for a social media campaign instead
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,887

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
    It was founded in 1999. Nearly a quarter of a century on, how do you think it’s doing?

    As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, it has gone backwards.

    Zero trust in “Europe” in military matters.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Nigelb said:

    The RAND Corporation take on Ukraine back at the beginning of the year, was way more embarrassing than anything Dura Ace has said.
    https://twitter.com/scharap/status/1484501166931206147

    They’re actually paid to be experts at this stuff.

    Paid by whom?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    Foxy said:

    Meghan and Kate, side-by-side in black…

    Imagine the bitchfest.

    "She deliberately came in the same colour dress..."

    I have been admonished by Mrs P for making what were apparently inappropriate comments on their respective rear ends in tight skirts…
    . . . and the winner is . . . Kate?
    I was similarly greater with suspicion for admiring their dress sense.

    (Kate definitely wins).

  • biggles said:

    slade said:

    Question for our constitutional experts - now William is Prince of Wales does he continue to be Duke of Cambridge or does the title pass to George?

    He continues. Along with half a dozen he just gained from his Dad who doesn’t keep his own.
    Dad’s got Normandy to Duke over now
    Titles "merge into the Crown". So William doesn't inherit 3rd Duke of Edinburgh from his dad. In fact, I think the plan was to recreate the title for the Earl of Wessex. Cornwall is reserved for the eldest son of the monarch, so he gets that along with Rothesay l think.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    According to this recently released YouTube video, some Russian MPs have put put a statement calling on Putin to resign. If accurate that's big, but I don't know how accurate or how many MPs are behind it. but link here anyway:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSZSXHDXYu4
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    nico679 said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Please tell me this is just some Twitter rubbish . That would be appalling , especially as Charles has been outspoken on the environment .
    I suspect the police would be less tolerant of them staying. They would probably leave some skin behind as they departed
    Isn't it best just to leave them glued there?
    I would, personally suggest the following -

    1) give them cups of tea. Lots.
    2) improve the gluing with some adhesives I could recommend
    3) leave
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,746
    biggles said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    “Fix bayonets”.

    And then no one will still be glued on.
    We will be going to the Kingsway on the outskirts of Dundee tomorrow around 2pm to see the cortege go by. I am expecting big crowds despite an astonishing lack of information. Can't see Extinction Rebellion getting any shrift from the crowd or the Police who have been practising this journey for years.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,313

    Sandpit said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Do they actually want to get lynched? Because disturbing a state funeral is a really good way to go about it. They’re stupid, but not that stupid.

    Oh, I know what, let’s be idiots on the day when you can’t move in the city for armed police, spooks, and half the army. None of whom care about your human right to make an arse of yourselves.
    I think its the most radical portion only. I doubt they are that stupid
    I think they probably are that stupid; but such an operation if attempted surely stands no chance of working because of the amount of security?
  • NYT - Ukrainian Forces Take Key City, Igniting New Phase in War

    Russia withdraws its forces from Izium, a logistics hub in the northeast.KYIV, Ukraine — Ukrainian forces entered the key Russian military stronghold of Izium on Saturday, continuing their rapid advance across the northeast and igniting a dramatic new phase in the more than six-month war.

    “Izium was liberated today,” the city’s mayor, Valeriy Marchenko, said in an interview. While he was not yet in the city himself, he said that he was in contact with the police and that emergency services were working to clear it of possible hazards before residents could return.

    Russia’s Ministry of Defense — which a day earlier had said that it was moving to reinforce its defensive positions in the region — confirmed on Saturday that it had pulled its forces out of Izium, six months after its forces laid siege to and then seized the city. In a statement, it presented the retreat as a preplanned move, intended to strengthen its efforts in the east where its army has been bogged down for weeks.

    Maintaining control of towns and cities has at times proven tenuous over the course of the war, and it was not immediately clear how secure Ukraine’s control over Izium was and what efforts Russia might take to try to win it back.

    But the loss of Izium — a strategically important railway hub that Russian forces seized in the spring after a bloody weekslong battle — could mark a turning point in the war, dwarfed only by Russia’s humiliating defeat around the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, in the spring.

    The first signs that Russian forces would retreat rather than fight emerged late on Friday.

    “Yesterday evening, Russians put a white flag nearby the railway station,” Yevhen, a Ukrainian officer who participated in the liberation of Izium, said in a telephone interview. “There was street fighting all over the night.” He asked to be identified by only his first name out of concerns for his security.
    Much about the Ukrainian offensive in the Kharkiv region, where Izium is, was shrouded in uncertainty amid a lack of official confirmation, and military analysts cautioned that it was a fast-moving situation that could change by the hour. . . .
  • kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    Everything is our business, we live in a global world.

    If China sparks a war in the Pacific it would absolutely 100% be our business, it'd make our current CoL crisis seem like nothing.

    In what way would a war in the Pacific not be our business? You're acting like the apologists who say a war in Ukraine is not our business.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    The RAND Corporation take on Ukraine back at the beginning of the year, was way more embarrassing than anything Dura Ace has said.
    https://twitter.com/scharap/status/1484501166931206147

    They’re actually paid to be experts at this stuff.

    Paid by whom?
    Varies - it’s a US non-profit that spun out of their WW2 industrial machine. It is greatly respected internationally for good analysis.
  • PM knew at 9.30am on Thu Queen was not expected to survive the day – according to Mail on Sunay

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1568649187323158529
  • Foxy said:

    Meghan and Kate, side-by-side in black…

    Imagine the bitchfest.

    "She deliberately came in the same colour dress..."

    I have been admonished by Mrs P for making what were apparently inappropriate comments on their respective rear ends in tight skirts…
    . . . and the winner is . . . Kate?
    Apparently, according to Mrs P, and to my great disappointment, it’s not a choice that I will ever have to make…
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Do they actually want to get lynched? Because disturbing a state funeral is a really good way to go about it. They’re stupid, but not that stupid.

    Oh, I know what, let’s be idiots on the day when you can’t move in the city for armed police, spooks, and half the army. None of whom care about your human right to make an arse of yourselves.
    I think its the most radical portion only. I doubt they are that stupid
    However, it only takes one complete narcissist to cause a right commotion (see Trenton Oldfield.)
    True, and im afraid with everyone who is anyone in London on Sept 19th all eyes need to be open for anything from this sort of nonsense to the ultra nefarious/madman.
    'Mischief' planners ought to consider security services will be at minimum tolerance/maximum reaction
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Nope, definitely not that, which sounds horribly EU-speak.

    What’s needed is the NATO structure as-is, but with the US gradually providing less of the support, and the European nations increasing their own capabilities, including areas such as surveillance, satellite intelligence, more aircraft in a variety of roles, and lots more exercises without US support.
  • more from NYT - . . . But the lightning offensive in the country’s northeast has reshaped what had become a grinding war of attrition. In a matter of days, Russian front lines have buckled, Moscow’s troops have fled and one village after another has come once more beneath Ukraine’s yellow and blue banner — like the town of Kupiansk just north of Izium, which sits on key supply routes to the eastern front line.

    Ukraine’s Security Service posted a photo on Telegram showing members of the special forces in Kupiansk.

    “We move further!” the post read, according to the Ukrinform news agency.

    As Ukrainian officials celebrated the turn of events, however cautiously, some prominent pro-Kremlin military bloggers expressed anger and frustration at the rapid developments.

    A Russian military blogger, who goes by the name Rusich, has 278,000 followers on Telegram and claimed to be in the city on Friday, wrote that the surrender of Izium was a “small setback” and urged his followers not to “despair.”

    With the Russians out of towns and cities they had battered in order to seize, the cost of their monthslong occupation was just starting to come into focus. Ukrainian officials said they had dispatched investigators to newly liberated towns to begin compiling evidence of Russian war crimes.

    In his overnight address, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said the military had recaptured more than 30 settlements in the Kharkiv region.

    “Actions to check and secure the territory continue,” he said. “We are gradually taking control of new settlements.”

    The eastern offensive, which began earlier this week, has cleared Russian forces from more than 2,500 square kilometers of land in the Kharkiv region as of Friday, according to an estimate by the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank.

    “There is still a lot that we don’t know about the offensive, but it is clear this was well planned and executed by Ukrainian forces,” said Rob Lee, a military analyst at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “It looks like a very effective combined arms operation with tanks, mechanized infantry, Special Operations forces, air defenses, artillery and other systems.” . . .
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,887

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
    Hell no.

    You get a Europe of nations willing to work together within NATO, like the UK, Poland, Estonia etc - while freeloaders like Germany and Ireland opt out.

    France will oscillate between the two camps depending upon who is in charge.

    And European nations that take defence seriously will be as bothered about China as the USA is.
    I like the Ed Miliband cameo but as for the rest - oh dear, it's a stream of silly national stereotyping.

    Surprised you didn't mention the Italians with their tanks that "only have one gear - reverse."
  • rest of NYT - Ukrainian and Western officials cautioned that the offensive operations were in their early days, that the situation was fluid and that any gains were far from secure. Some military analysts warned that the Ukrainians’ rapid advance could leave them stretched thin and vulnerable to counterattack.

    In addition to the counteroffensive in the northeast, Ukraine has been making a push in the south to recapture territory in the Kherson region.

    Mr. Marchenko, the mayor of Izium, said that about 12,000 residents had remained in the city and desperately needed humanitarian supplies.

    He said he hoped that residents who had fled could start returning in three or four days but that devastation awaited them.

    “There’s no single residential building that wasn’t damaged,” the mayor said.

    “Heating is the biggest problem,” he added. “I doubt whether we would be able to restore the heating system before winter.”

    Oleksii Reznikoff, Ukraine’s defense minister, did not comment on specific gains but at a conference in Kyiv on Saturday he said the Russian troops were on the run.

    “Russian troops will run, and they will, believe me, because today we are destroying their logistics chains, warehouses, and so on,” he said. “And the question will arise: ‘And where should they go?’ It will be like an avalanche.”

    One line of defense will shake and it will fall, he said, and then another and another.
  • Just catching up with the energy debate, where apparently warm sentiments were expressed about tidal (by Theresa May no less, who turned it down) and agreed with by JRM. Is tidal back on the agenda?

    Yes
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Mountain out of a molehill.
    Shit, do you look like that when ordering the servants to move an inkwell 7 mm?
    Tut, surely you mean 9/32 of an inch.
    TBF, it’s a ridiculously small table for rather large documents.
    I think he was just a bit flustered.

    And I’m hardly a fan.
  • PM knew at 9.30am on Thu Queen was not expected to survive the day – according to Mail on Sunay

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1568649187323158529

    "The new Iron Lady Liz Truss"
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    nico679 said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Please tell me this is just some Twitter rubbish . That would be appalling , especially as Charles has been outspoken on the environment .
    I suspect the police would be less tolerant of them staying. They would probably leave some skin behind as they departed
    Isn't it best just to leave them glued there?
    I would, personally suggest the following -

    1) give them cups of tea. Lots.
    2) improve the gluing with some adhesives I could recommend
    3) leave
    It’ll become part of the constitution. 300 years from now at the funeral of Elizabeth VI there will be some ceremonially attired volunteers sticking themselves to the ceremonial hyper loop for reason no one can recall.

  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,045

    PM knew at 9.30am on Thu Queen was not expected to survive the day – according to Mail on Sunay

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1568649187323158529

    The Mail on Sunday says it? My God, have you seen some of the things the Mail on Sunday has said?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,548
    darkage said:

    Omnium said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    China will be in no great hurry to do anything militarily. They're winning the new war of Empires. A failing Russian sphere will naturally fall under their auspices in the coming years.

    I doubt any superpower will want to chance its arm any time soon in doing anything militarily. Ukraine shines a light on the excuses made for VietNam, Korea, Afghanistan (x2), Iraq - superpowers aren't really what it says on the tin.

    So in many ways this should decrease defence spending as it seems rather pointless, but on the other hand if you ever actually imagine that you might want to achieve anything militarily you realise you might need to spend more.

    One successful offensive in Ukraine and now its game over, cut defence spending?

    I do not share that outlook at all.

    The long term picture looks to be conflict with China. Look at what happened in Hong Kong. It can't just be ignored.
    What did happen in Hong Kong though? The answer is not very much. For most people involved they've gone from a comfortable life with one set of expectations to a comfortable life with a different set of expectations.

    I'm very uncomfortable with all sorts of stuff the Chinese government does, everybody is, including I think themselves. For the great majority of their citizens though they are doing a good job. (Far better than the Russians as a comparison)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,549
    edited September 2022
    DavidL said:

    biggles said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    “Fix bayonets”.

    And then no one will still be glued on.
    We will be going to the Kingsway on the outskirts of Dundee tomorrow around 2pm to see the cortege go by. I am expecting big crowds despite an astonishing lack of information. Can't see Extinction Rebellion getting any shrift from the crowd or the Police who have been practising this journey for years.
    The Press & Journal has some Aberdeenshire timings:

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen-aberdeenshire/4776346/queens-coffin-to-take-route-through-her-beloved-aberdeenshire-and-into-aberdeen/

    And the Courier Angus ones:


    https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/dundee/3682672/queen-coffin-cortege-dundee/
  • @michaelh992
    Ukrainian journalist Yuriy Butuzov (who has generally been embeded in Ukrainian units) says Russian troops found themselves caught in a "cauldron" (i.e. surrounded by Ukrainian forces) as they were withdrawing from Izyum.

    He says #Ukraine's 80th Airborne Assault Brigade of the Ukrainian military destroyed the surrounded Russian forces. Some of them also surrendered.


    https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1568647050987999234
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,887
    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
    I agree to some extent but see the Polish (and other Eastern European) statements about Germany over Ukraine. Such a construct will need now to involve us so, I suspect, will be more about an enhanced European “wing” to NATO.
    Yes - we should be part of the CEDC. A key part as you say.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456
    stodge said:

    As for the Ukraine, I'm where I was late yesterday evening.

    Even if the Russians are forced out of the Dombas, what then? There may be many with Russian familial and cultural links who, via Russian disinformation, may regard the idea of living in a Ukraine ruled democratically from Kyiv, as anathema and as in so many other conflicts, the final victims aren't soldiers but civilians forced or deciding voluntarily (it matters little) to migrate from their long-held homes.

    I fear a humanitarian catastrophe if pro-Russian residents feel they have no option but to leave. That's Putin's responsibility, unequivocally and undoubtedly but it doesn't alter the facts. Zelenskyy will have a region to manage which will need a lot of time, effort and money to rebuild and restore after months of destruction.

    The Crimea remains a problem too - for all the Russians may be forced from Kherson and Mariupol in time, are we suggesting the Ukrainians will advance into Crimea. It may be the Crimean people might want a say in their future and perhaps their preference is to rule themselves rather than be ruled by wither Kyiv or Moscow.

    Until its restored to the nation the international community recognises as governing it no referendum is likely I'd think.

    The rest of your points are issues for another day - yes they need thinking about but nothing can be done until the war is actually won.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    Everything is our business, we live in a global world.

    If China sparks a war in the Pacific it would absolutely 100% be our business, it'd make our current CoL crisis seem like nothing.

    In what way would a war in the Pacific not be our business? You're acting like the apologists who say a war in Ukraine is not our business.
    Had you had a think about where China is, vs where Russia is, relative to 1. Europe 2. the UK? What sort of military engagement between UK and China should we be prepping for?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649

    biggles said:

    slade said:

    Question for our constitutional experts - now William is Prince of Wales does he continue to be Duke of Cambridge or does the title pass to George?

    He continues. Along with half a dozen he just gained from his Dad who doesn’t keep his own.
    Dad’s got Normandy to Duke over now
    Titles "merge into the Crown". So William doesn't inherit 3rd Duke of Edinburgh from his dad. In fact, I think the plan was to recreate the title for the Earl of Wessex. Cornwall is reserved for the eldest son of the monarch, so he gets that along with Rothesay l think.
    Earl of Chester, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Protector of Scotland, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew apparently
  • glwglw Posts: 8,863
    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    This is truly daft take on things.

    China is bound to become the dominant economic power, and almost certainly the dominant military power. China will in time likely have very widespread influence, and much like the US does now they will have military bases all over the world. China will be our business whether we like it or not.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,887

    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    Dividing the world into blocs/spheres of influence seems more characteristic of an imperial mindset.
    In that post I meant the old BRITISH imperial mindset whereby all the world is our "patch".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456

    nico679 said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Please tell me this is just some Twitter rubbish . That would be appalling , especially as Charles has been outspoken on the environment .
    Partly it is indeed outrage froth, but it appears Extinctiin Rebellion themselves split on whether to 'do stuff'.
    Based on their rhetoric they probably should - global extinction demands no respect for solemnity. But they probably wouldnt.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,673
    darkage said:

    Omnium said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    China will be in no great hurry to do anything militarily. They're winning the new war of Empires. A failing Russian sphere will naturally fall under their auspices in the coming years.

    I doubt any superpower will want to chance its arm any time soon in doing anything militarily. Ukraine shines a light on the excuses made for VietNam, Korea, Afghanistan (x2), Iraq - superpowers aren't really what it says on the tin.

    So in many ways this should decrease defence spending as it seems rather pointless, but on the other hand if you ever actually imagine that you might want to achieve anything militarily you realise you might need to spend more.

    One successful offensive in Ukraine and now its game over, cut defence spending?

    I do not share that outlook at all.

    The long term picture looks to be conflict with China. Look at what happened in Hong Kong. It can't just be ignored.
    The Russian experience may rather put the Chinese off getting their feet wet.

    In any case we have no longer ability to sustain operations in the area. This isn't 1842.

    Rethinking quite what mix of forces we may need for future conflicts is the first task. An integrated force structure like the US Marine Corps perhaps.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,788
    edited September 2022

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    In best Father Ted voice, countries are countries and alliances are collections of countries, NATO being an alliance to which Germany, France.and the UK belong.:
    Collections of countries != Common European Defence Capability. In fact its literally the opposite.
    I’ve noticed that about you lot before, you’re eternally oscillating between bleating about the homogenising oppression of the EU while simultaneously complaining when EU countries’ responses to eg Ukraine differ from each other’s let alone the UK’s far from perfect one. I imagine it must be uncomfortable for anyone with a capacity for self analysis.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,548
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    Dividing the world into blocs/spheres of influence seems more characteristic of an imperial mindset.
    In that post I meant the old BRITISH imperial mindset whereby all the world is our "patch".
    Ludicrous parochialism - it's the universe that is the British Empire's patch :)
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,313
    I can remember around about 2015 / 2016, the green party policy on defence was very popular; IE that it should be scaled right back to a functional territorial defence, because Britain was under 'no threat'.
    Corbyn was not keen on defence or NATO.
    In the end, these arguments always come out in times of apparent peace.
    This situation in Ukraine will be eventually forgotten and the same delusions will return, it is just inevitable.

    Sadly, the western powers need to maintain a position of hegenomy in relation to defence, in combination with its allies. It should be the very first priority of the state.
  • DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Against whom? I have always questioned whether Russia was a military threat (they are still a damn nuisance with cyber and with acts of terrorism like Salisbury) but the answer to this is now absolutely clear. It is no.

    So Europe either chooses to play where the action is (in the Pacific) or it chooses not to. I think all bar us will choose not and even our contribution will be pretty token. So I agree, the promise of 3% GDP will not be met and nor should it be.
    Had it not been for the support from the US then Ukraine would have lost this war. Russia made the mistake of complacently assuming that Ukraine would be the shambles they were in 2014. We should not complacently assume that Russia will still be a shambles in 2030 when we have no idea what the politics of the US will look like.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    edited September 2022
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
    I agree to some extent but see the Polish (and other Eastern European) statements about Germany over Ukraine. Such a construct will need now to involve us so, I suspect, will be more about an enhanced European “wing” to NATO.
    Yes - we should be part of the CEDC. A key part as you say.
    Yes. What’s needed is a solid UK/Fr basis which rejects both an “EU-centric” and Brexiteer narrative. It’s about regional security and you build it with the grain of NATO (we neither of us have the cash to bother replicating NATO structures). That’s the only way it has teeth.

  • IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    Everything is our business, we live in a global world.

    If China sparks a war in the Pacific it would absolutely 100% be our business, it'd make our current CoL crisis seem like nothing.

    In what way would a war in the Pacific not be our business? You're acting like the apologists who say a war in Ukraine is not our business.
    Had you had a think about where China is, vs where Russia is, relative to 1. Europe 2. the UK? What sort of military engagement between UK and China should we be prepping for?
    One where one half of our blue water navy is laid up for repairs presumably.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,887
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Nope, definitely not that, which sounds horribly EU-speak.

    What’s needed is the NATO structure as-is, but with the US gradually providing less of the support, and the European nations increasing their own capabilities, including areas such as surveillance, satellite intelligence, more aircraft in a variety of roles, and lots more exercises without US support.
    That's exactly what I said! Over time the reliance on the US is gradually replaced by a common European (inc the UK) defence capability.

    Happy to call it NATO rather than the CEDC if that's important to you.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 990
    edited September 2022
    Leon said:
    Combat around it, not yet 100% on its ownership.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    Everything is our business, we live in a global world.

    If China sparks a war in the Pacific it would absolutely 100% be our business, it'd make our current CoL crisis seem like nothing.

    In what way would a war in the Pacific not be our business? You're acting like the apologists who say a war in Ukraine is not our business.
    Had you had a think about where China is, vs where Russia is, relative to 1. Europe 2. the UK? What sort of military engagement between UK and China should we be prepping for?
    One where one half of our blue water navy is laid up for repairs presumably.
    Utter bollocks.



    It’s more like 2/3.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
    It was founded in 1999. Nearly a quarter of a century on, how do you think it’s doing?

    As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, it has gone backwards.

    Zero trust in “Europe” in military matters.
    Yes. What did the Polish party leader say a week back?

    “Poland has only these allies in Europe: Great Britain, and the Baltic states. That’s it”

    That is not the sound of a European Defense Identity in the making
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    News out of Ukraine is fantastic but what may be way more interesting is what's happening in Moscow. Apparently the centre has been sealed off and there is talk of Putin 'exterminating' those responsible for the Kharkiv debacle. Time to open a book on Vlad's departure?

    Is there a book on the Eurovision being held in Mariupol as Zaleski predicted? If so I would like to put money on it.
  • Chris said:

    PM knew at 9.30am on Thu Queen was not expected to survive the day – according to Mail on Sunay

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1568649187323158529

    The Mail on Sunday says it? My God, have you seen some of the things the Mail on Sunday has said?
    The Telegraph now reporting Truss was informed before she went to present her energy proposals the Queen was failing and her death was imminent

    I assume this was much the same time as the members of the Royal family and it really is not a party political issue, you would expect the PM to be notified first
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Omnium said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    Dividing the world into blocs/spheres of influence seems more characteristic of an imperial mindset.
    In that post I meant the old BRITISH imperial mindset whereby all the world is our "patch".
    Ludicrous parochialism - it's the universe that is the British Empire's patch :)
    Here is s.13 Outer Space Act 1986

    13 Minor definitions.

    (1)In this Act—

    “dependent territory” means—

    (a)a colony, or

    (b)a country outside Her Majesty’s dominions in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction in right of Her Government in the United Kingdom;

    “outer space” includes the moon and other celestial bodies; and

    “space object” includes the component parts of a space object, its launch vehicle and the component parts of that.
    (2)For the purposes of this Act a person carries on an activity if he causes it to occur or is responsible for its continuing."

    Great to live in a country where defining every star and planet in the observable universe is a minor definition, AND comes after the definition of a colony.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,746

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Against whom? I have always questioned whether Russia was a military threat (they are still a damn nuisance with cyber and with acts of terrorism like Salisbury) but the answer to this is now absolutely clear. It is no.

    So Europe either chooses to play where the action is (in the Pacific) or it chooses not to. I think all bar us will choose not and even our contribution will be pretty token. So I agree, the promise of 3% GDP will not be met and nor should it be.
    Had it not been for the support from the US then Ukraine would have lost this war. Russia made the mistake of complacently assuming that Ukraine would be the shambles they were in 2014. We should not complacently assume that Russia will still be a shambles in 2030 when we have no idea what the politics of the US will look like.
    I will be astonished if Russia even exists in its current form in 2030. This defeat, this humiliation, is so epochal that a further spin off of disaffected provinces in the east and south is all too likely. Given their spread of nuclear weapons and armour propre this is very far from unadulterated good news.
  • Macron and Truss have spoken.

    @EmmanuelMacron
    À la nouvelle Première ministre du Royaume-Uni, en ce jour si particulier, j’ai présenté nos condoléances. Les liens entre nos nations sont historiques. Nous les renforcerons. Notre soutien à l’Ukraine, la sécurité alimentaire et énergétique, seront parmi nos priorités communes.


    https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1568653761278791680
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,887
    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
    I agree to some extent but see the Polish (and other Eastern European) statements about Germany over Ukraine. Such a construct will need now to involve us so, I suspect, will be more about an enhanced European “wing” to NATO.
    Yes - we should be part of the CEDC. A key part as you say.
    Yes. What’s needed is a solid UK/Fr basis which rejects both an “EU-centric” and Brexiteer narrative. It’s about regional security and you build it with the grain of NATO (we neither of us have the cash to bother replicating NATO structures). That’s the only way it has teeth.
    We 72% agree, I sense.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,205
    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    As for the Ukraine, I'm where I was late yesterday evening.

    Even if the Russians are forced out of the Dombas, what then? There may be many with Russian familial and cultural links who, via Russian disinformation, may regard the idea of living in a Ukraine ruled democratically from Kyiv, as anathema and as in so many other conflicts, the final victims aren't soldiers but civilians forced or deciding voluntarily (it matters little) to migrate from their long-held homes.

    I fear a humanitarian catastrophe if pro-Russian residents feel they have no option but to leave. That's Putin's responsibility, unequivocally and undoubtedly but it doesn't alter the facts. Zelenskyy will have a region to manage which will need a lot of time, effort and money to rebuild and restore after months of destruction.

    The Crimea remains a problem too - for all the Russians may be forced from Kherson and Mariupol in time, are we suggesting the Ukrainians will advance into Crimea. It may be the Crimean people might want a say in their future and perhaps their preference is to rule themselves rather than be ruled by wither Kyiv or Moscow.

    Until its restored to the nation the international community recognises as governing it no referendum is likely I'd think.

    The rest of your points are issues for another day - yes they need thinking about but nothing can be done until the war is actually won.
    The problem with winning a war is if you don't get it right all you do is make the next war inevitable. How is this war going to be "won" in such a way we won't be back here in 5-10 years?

    The triumphalist utterings of some on Twitter miss the point - there are many people in Luhansk and Donetsk for example who would want to see a continued relationship with Russia for familial and cultural reasons. The Crimea is a long way from being a "natural part" of Ukraine.

    If you think Crimea is part of the Ukraine how are you going to force Russia to give up the naval base at Sebastopol?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,673

    Just catching up with the energy debate, where apparently warm sentiments were expressed about tidal (by Theresa May no less, who turned it down) and agreed with by JRM. Is tidal back on the agenda?

    Yes
    Cancelled in June 2018:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/25/government-rejects-plan-for-tidal-lagoon-in-swansea

    Truss was Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the plug was pulled on it, on expense grounds.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,746
    Leon said:
    It seems that the extent of the Ukranian advance is going to be determined by the amount of fuel in their vehicles. All opposition seems to have collapsed.
  • PM knew at 9.30am on Thu Queen was not expected to survive the day – according to Mail on Sunay

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1568649187323158529

    "The new Iron Lady Liz Truss"
    Oh dear. We know what happened to the previous one...


  • darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    The RAND Corporation take on Ukraine back at the beginning of the year, was way more embarrassing than anything Dura Ace has said.
    https://twitter.com/scharap/status/1484501166931206147

    They’re actually paid to be experts at this stuff.

    Yes, that is career-ending levels of rubbish
    I think it is too early to draw these conclusions.
    But even if the Russian army 'fold', in the face of this offensive, the reality will be that all the intelligence assessments underestimated the conventional capacity of the Russian Army, it isn't a case of one or two discredited writers.
    This really isn't a case of some mythical idea of the west 'not having the guts to fight Putin'.
    The foreign policy piece argued that it is preferable to find a diplomatic solution to the problem of Ukraine which is still in retrospect correct as it would have avoided a load of human tragedy.
    We don't know how this ends and celebrations of 'beating back Putin' are in my view dangerously tempting fate.
    Well, the appropriate "diplomatic solution" is the one we (thought we) had in 2013.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 990
    stodge said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    As for the Ukraine, I'm where I was late yesterday evening.

    Even if the Russians are forced out of the Dombas, what then? There may be many with Russian familial and cultural links who, via Russian disinformation, may regard the idea of living in a Ukraine ruled democratically from Kyiv, as anathema and as in so many other conflicts, the final victims aren't soldiers but civilians forced or deciding voluntarily (it matters little) to migrate from their long-held homes.

    I fear a humanitarian catastrophe if pro-Russian residents feel they have no option but to leave. That's Putin's responsibility, unequivocally and undoubtedly but it doesn't alter the facts. Zelenskyy will have a region to manage which will need a lot of time, effort and money to rebuild and restore after months of destruction.

    The Crimea remains a problem too - for all the Russians may be forced from Kherson and Mariupol in time, are we suggesting the Ukrainians will advance into Crimea. It may be the Crimean people might want a say in their future and perhaps their preference is to rule themselves rather than be ruled by wither Kyiv or Moscow.

    Until its restored to the nation the international community recognises as governing it no referendum is likely I'd think.

    The rest of your points are issues for another day - yes they need thinking about but nothing can be done until the war is actually won.
    The problem with winning a war is if you don't get it right all you do is make the next war inevitable. How is this war going to be "won" in such a way we won't be back here in 5-10 years?

    The triumphalist utterings of some on Twitter miss the point - there are many people in Luhansk and Donetsk for example who would want to see a continued relationship with Russia for familial and cultural reasons. The Crimea is a long way from being a "natural part" of Ukraine.

    If you think Crimea is part of the Ukraine how are you going to force Russia to give up the naval base at Sebastopol?
    Are you aware of how little of the populaton of Ukraine the post-2014 LPR & DPR really consisted of?

  • Yokes said:

    Ukraine

    Some facts (an an opinion) about the riotously successful Kharkiv offensive

    1. Extremely well executed. Russian airpower has been scared off , anti-air defences seriously degraded (the VKS has been bloody awful throughout this conflict) , depth fire preparation really good

    2. The attack was hitting a weak spot, attesting to the planning. What some may miss is the real mix of Russian forces in the area that the Ukrainians have driven through. Its not all Russian army, the National Guard (otherwise known as Putins own) and FSB forces who are really heavily armed paramilitary forces made up a fair bit of the Russian troops. Neither is really equipped for combined arms, heavy mechanised warfare

    3. Russia has pushed reinforcements in, but how many & how good and will they be in the right places to return the favour? Unlcear. They are also going to be in danger of destrction enroute now the Ukrainians have better indirect fire resources. The Ukrainians have superior battlefield management systems and intelligence and have done throughout the war, a major problem for Russia

    4. We have no idea of the Ukrainian ability to make the offensive stick. There is no clear understanding of whether the Ukrainians have the follow-on forces required to back it up. Much of the depth of the advance has been due to classic strategy of drive driving past of the enemy then wheeling around. This can lead to disarray for an enemy fearing entrapment but the maps show a narrow advance not yet spanning out in enciclement so a counter attack coudl wipe this out quickly

    5. I did mention weeks ago that the test for Russia facing the well trailed, but not yet launched, Kherson offensive was whether they could at least launch some kind of offensive of their own elsewhere as a counter. If they couldnt it was a very bad sign.

    Should not take long to see how this pans out, about a week.

    I note downthreat the fantastic fantasy about a common European defense strategy. Not going to ever work because a) they arent prepared to spend and b) they cant execute. What turned me massively against the EU was seeing close up the outcome of events in the Balkans with the Europeans unable to have the balls or the unified approach to take decisive action. The US really bailed it out. In Ukraine, its the US again who really put the smarts and strategic power behind it. You only have to look at the slack contribution of some EU nations (along with the occasionally mealy mouth) to the Ukrainian war effort to know Europe as a political entity is lacking collectve strength.

    Very interesting posting.

    Seems to me (an armchair strategist sans armchair) that Ukrainians did excellent job of diverting attention, of Russians AND just about everybody else seemingly, toward the southern/Kherson front and thus away from eastern/Kharkiv front.

    Will Kherson prove to be Putin's Pas de Calais?
  • Yokes said:

    Leon said:
    Combat around it, not yet 100% on its ownership.
    Twitter is reporting Donetsk airport "is ours - and more" and a raid into Belgorod oblast to deal with a mortar unit
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,887
    glw said:

    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    This is truly daft take on things.

    China is bound to become the dominant economic power, and almost certainly the dominant military power. China will in time likely have very widespread influence, and much like the US does now they will have military bases all over the world. China will be our business whether we like it or not.
    We have a big interest in how China behaves and develops, yes. I don't think anything I've posted implies otherwise.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,548
    IshmaelZ said:

    Omnium said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    Dividing the world into blocs/spheres of influence seems more characteristic of an imperial mindset.
    In that post I meant the old BRITISH imperial mindset whereby all the world is our "patch".
    Ludicrous parochialism - it's the universe that is the British Empire's patch :)
    Here is s.13 Outer Space Act 1986

    13 Minor definitions.

    (1)In this Act—

    “dependent territory” means—

    (a)a colony, or

    (b)a country outside Her Majesty’s dominions in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction in right of Her Government in the United Kingdom;

    “outer space” includes the moon and other celestial bodies; and

    “space object” includes the component parts of a space object, its launch vehicle and the component parts of that.
    (2)For the purposes of this Act a person carries on an activity if he causes it to occur or is responsible for its continuing."

    Great to live in a country where defining every star and planet in the observable universe is a minor definition, AND comes after the definition of a colony.
    There's a bit of a SF theme whereby authors choose to have our nationalism spread into some imagined wave of space colonization. I'm sure that it's just laziness on their part, and adds free flavour to their rather drab texts. However the actual reality of the thing is a maybe!
  • PM knew at 9.30am on Thu Queen was not expected to survive the day – according to Mail on Sunay

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1568649187323158529

    Can't read the Mail yet but it sounds unlikely given the note that sent a flutter round the Commons was around 12.30 and the Royal Family was not summoned until too late. Princess Anne was already at Balmoral; Charles barely made it; the others did not arrive until after the Queen's demise.

    I can believe the slightly weaker claim that at least one civil servant saw the 9.30 note and frowned pessimistically.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Please tell me this is just some Twitter rubbish . That would be appalling , especially as Charles has been outspoken on the environment .
    Partly it is indeed outrage froth, but it appears Extinctiin Rebellion themselves split on whether to 'do stuff'.
    If they want to totally destroy their brand then that would be the way to go about it . It would be a total disgrace to try and disrupt the funeral and I say this as someone whose neither a big monarchist but is sympathetic to their frustration at what’s happening to the planet . They need to stop and think and realize it would be a public relations disaster .
    A suffragette ran in front of the King's horse, so I can imagine something for the Coronation possibly working, but at a funeral? A funeral?!?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Nope, definitely not that, which sounds horribly EU-speak.

    What’s needed is the NATO structure as-is, but with the US gradually providing less of the support, and the European nations increasing their own capabilities, including areas such as surveillance, satellite intelligence, more aircraft in a variety of roles, and lots more exercises without US support.
    That's exactly what I said! Over time the reliance on the US is gradually replaced by a common European (inc the UK) defence capability.

    Happy to call it NATO rather than the CEDC if that's important to you.
    What you want to call it is irrelevant. The important things are that it involves co-operation between countries in a similar way to how NATO works now (as opposed to the top-down structure of the EU bureaucracy, hated by the Eastern European countries in the firing line), and that it requires significant increases in investment of military capability over time, such that Europe is not so reliant on the USA for its defence.
  • Foxy said:

    Just catching up with the energy debate, where apparently warm sentiments were expressed about tidal (by Theresa May no less, who turned it down) and agreed with by JRM. Is tidal back on the agenda?

    Yes
    Cancelled in June 2018:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/25/government-rejects-plan-for-tidal-lagoon-in-swansea

    Truss was Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the plug was pulled on it, on expense grounds.
    Those were different days when tidal was wholly uneconomic, but the recent dramatic events has changed all that and tidal is now part of the mix
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:
    It seems that the extent of the Ukranian advance is going to be determined by the amount of fuel in their vehicles. All opposition seems to have collapsed.
    it’s a bit like the Iraqi Army facing ISIS. At the moment
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
    Hell no.

    You get a Europe of nations willing to work together within NATO, like the UK, Poland, Estonia etc - while freeloaders like Germany and Ireland opt out.

    France will oscillate between the two camps depending upon who is in charge.

    And European nations that take defence seriously will be as bothered about China as the USA is.
    I like the Ed Miliband cameo but as for the rest - oh dear, it's a stream of silly national stereotyping.

    Surprised you didn't mention the Italians with their tanks that "only have one gear - reverse."
    No stereotypes just an acknowledgement and reality of the world as it really is this year.

    You're only about one step away from Stop The War levels of self delusion. Actually when you insist it's imperialistic to be concerned about China, I'm not sure if you're any steps away from them.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Chris said:

    PM knew at 9.30am on Thu Queen was not expected to survive the day – according to Mail on Sunay

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1568649187323158529

    The Mail on Sunday says it? My God, have you seen some of the things the Mail on Sunday has said?
    The Telegraph now reporting Truss was informed before she went to present her energy proposals the Queen was failing and her death was imminent

    I assume this was much the same time as the members of the Royal family and it really is not a party political issue, you would expect the PM to be notified first
    Yup. And Rentoul's retweeting of the MoS should add weight to it.

    THEREFORE the note to Liz from NZ did NOT say HM is utterly and incredibly fucking poorly because that was not news at this stage. What comes next? 4 letters, first letter D

    I was right, as so often.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,968
    IshmaelZ said:

    Omnium said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
    You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
    Dividing the world into blocs/spheres of influence seems more characteristic of an imperial mindset.
    In that post I meant the old BRITISH imperial mindset whereby all the world is our "patch".
    Ludicrous parochialism - it's the universe that is the British Empire's patch :)
    Here is s.13 Outer Space Act 1986

    13 Minor definitions.

    (1)In this Act—

    “dependent territory” means—

    (a)a colony, or

    (b)a country outside Her Majesty’s dominions in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction in right of Her Government in the United Kingdom;

    “outer space” includes the moon and other celestial bodies; and

    “space object” includes the component parts of a space object, its launch vehicle and the component parts of that.
    (2)For the purposes of this Act a person carries on an activity if he causes it to occur or is responsible for its continuing."

    Great to live in a country where defining every star and planet in the observable universe is a minor definition, AND comes after the definition of a colony.
    Alphabetical order.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,877
    O/T but as there are plenty of tech wizards on here does anyone know any programs you can download to recover deleted iPhone texts?

    Trying to help a friend in UK in some silly sexual harassment work case (he’s a muppet but not a pest) where it’s a “he said/she said” situation. Not having a clue about UK employment law I’m assuming nothing can be done as it’s her word against his (apparently he offloaded to a colleague who he thought he was friends with about something of a sexual nature, pretty innocuous stuff but he’s in his fifties and she’s in her 20’s) but he’s super stressed.

    I asked him if he had messages that could show he had the sort of relationship he says he had with her where they offloaded personal crap to each other and he’s deleted so trying to help him recover to help him.

    He’s obviously been stupid but if what he says is true then I would like to help him clear himself…

    Thanks in advance. And this isn’t an “asking for a friend” but actually asking for a friend!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,205

    stodge said:

    As for the Ukraine, I'm where I was late yesterday evening.

    Even if the Russians are forced out of the Dombas, what then? There may be many with Russian familial and cultural links who, via Russian disinformation, may regard the idea of living in a Ukraine ruled democratically from Kyiv, as anathema and as in so many other conflicts, the final victims aren't soldiers but civilians forced or deciding voluntarily (it matters little) to migrate from their long-held homes.

    I fear a humanitarian catastrophe if pro-Russian residents feel they have no option but to leave. That's Putin's responsibility, unequivocally and undoubtedly but it doesn't alter the facts. Zelenskyy will have a region to manage which will need a lot of time, effort and money to rebuild and restore after months of destruction.

    The Crimea remains a problem too - for all the Russians may be forced from Kherson and Mariupol in time, are we suggesting the Ukrainians will advance into Crimea. It may be the Crimean people might want a say in their future and perhaps their preference is to rule themselves rather than be ruled by wither Kyiv or Moscow.

    Crimea and Donbas democratically voted to be in independent Ukraine.

    Any who don't, should be welcome to live in Russia. There is no reason to prevaricate that Crimea and Donbas are legitimately Ukrainian.
    Sorry, can you provide a citation for that claim especially in respect of the Crimea? Are you talking about the 1991 vote or the 1994 vote?

    As far as the Donbas is concerned, I agree the territory is part of the Ukraine but many of the peoples within it have familial and cultural ties to Russia and Kyiv can't ignore that.

    Crimea is much more difficult - I think the Crimean people should be offered a choice up to and including independence from both Kyiv and Moscow.

    There's also the small matter of the Russian naval presence at Sebastopol, the preservation of which was the principal raison d'etre for the 2014 annexation. How do you suppose the Ukraine is going to force the Russians to give up the base? An independent Crimea may allow the Russians to stay but it would be their decision.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,746

    DavidL said:

    biggles said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    “Fix bayonets”.

    And then no one will still be glued on.
    We will be going to the Kingsway on the outskirts of Dundee tomorrow around 2pm to see the cortege go by. I am expecting big crowds despite an astonishing lack of information. Can't see Extinction Rebellion getting any shrift from the crowd or the Police who have been practising this journey for years.
    The Press & Journal has some Aberdeenshire timings:

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen-aberdeenshire/4776346/queens-coffin-to-take-route-through-her-beloved-aberdeenshire-and-into-aberdeen/

    And the Courier Angus ones:


    https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/dundee/3682672/queen-coffin-cortege-dundee/
    Yes we bought the Courier today and got that. Thanks.
  • PM knew at 9.30am on Thu Queen was not expected to survive the day – according to Mail on Sunay

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1568649187323158529

    Can't read the Mail yet but it sounds unlikely given the note that sent a flutter round the Commons was around 12.30 and the Royal Family was not summoned until too late. Princess Anne was already at Balmoral; Charles barely made it; the others did not arrive until after the Queen's demise.

    I can believe the slightly weaker claim that at least one civil servant saw the 9.30 note and frowned pessimistically.
    Also now reported in the telegraph and why would the PM not be the first to know

    As I said before this is not political
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    “Russian sources are in a state of panic that Ukraine is launching a (possibly) multipronged offensive to liberate Donetsk. They report fighting near the city of Donetsk (airport) and Ukrainian forces massing in several other locations south and north of the city.“


    https://twitter.com/stateofukraine/status/1568655141955600385?s=21&t=HrZK85GVktm1VKpDUbOS2w
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    IshmaelZ said:

    Chris said:

    PM knew at 9.30am on Thu Queen was not expected to survive the day – according to Mail on Sunay

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1568649187323158529

    The Mail on Sunday says it? My God, have you seen some of the things the Mail on Sunday has said?
    The Telegraph now reporting Truss was informed before she went to present her energy proposals the Queen was failing and her death was imminent

    I assume this was much the same time as the members of the Royal family and it really is not a party political issue, you would expect the PM to be notified first
    Yup. And Rentoul's retweeting of the MoS should add weight to it.

    THEREFORE the note to Liz from NZ did NOT say HM is utterly and incredibly fucking poorly because that was not news at this stage. What comes next? 4 letters, first letter D

    I was right, as so often.
    So Keir Starmer really did wish the Queen a recovery after he was told she had died, his deputy retweeting it and Downing Street randomly lied about the time the PM was informed of her death. Plausible.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,337
    edited September 2022
    BBC now reporting on the Ukraine - in some areas Russian fronts have collapsed
  • Seem to be multiple reports that Russian troops are sealing off the ring road of Moscow. Might be nothing. Who knows...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    edited September 2022
    boulay said:

    O/T but as there are plenty of tech wizards on here does anyone know any programs you can download to recover deleted iPhone texts?

    Trying to help a friend in UK in some silly sexual harassment work case (he’s a muppet but not a pest) where it’s a “he said/she said” situation. Not having a clue about UK employment law I’m assuming nothing can be done as it’s her word against his (apparently he offloaded to a colleague who he thought he was friends with about something of a sexual nature, pretty innocuous stuff but he’s in his fifties and she’s in her 20’s) but he’s super stressed.

    I asked him if he had messages that could show he had the sort of relationship he says he had with her where they offloaded personal crap to each other and he’s deleted so trying to help him recover to help him.

    He’s obviously been stupid but if what he says is true then I would like to help him clear himself…

    Thanks in advance. And this isn’t an “asking for a friend” but actually asking for a friend!

    Text messages are recorded by the phone companies on their systems for a period.

    Don’t work in telecoms, any more, so I can’t tell you how long that is for.

    Would require legal type request for evidence to get, I think.

    EDIT : that is for text messages. If they are iPhone iMessage messages, that is a different matter.
This discussion has been closed.