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

1356789

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    The news from Ukraine is stupefying. IF - if if if - Ukraine can hold on to these gains - or even extend them - it is one of the greatest military “campaigns” in modern history

    I’m trying and failing to think of its equal. A supposedly inferior power completely shattering a “superpower”
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393
    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!

    Technically, there’s a few ways to do it: see guides such as this.

    HOWEVER, as there are legal implications to the messages, tread very carefully, consult with a lawyer, and consider using a third-party IT company with legal experience to assist you. Doing it ‘wrong’ may result in ‘contaminated’ evidence.
  • 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?
    I understood that a large number of the formerly Russian leaning residents of a Luhansk and Donetsk so hated the tyranny of the last 8 years that they have switched to supporting Ukraine independent of their familial ties
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,746
    Leon 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.
    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
    He forgot Ukraine.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    Foxy said:

    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.
    They'll need to get rid of the Red Arrows and horsed cavalry and artillery if they are serious. The armed forces are now so small these take a fair dent out of the wider capability and training of skilled servicefolk. (Indeed, the current artillery capability, for anything later than the 1980s rather than 1910s, is alarmingly poor.)
  • 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
    What seems unlikely is that Balmoral would tell the Prime Minister at 9.30 that death was imminent but not get around to summoning the family until several hours later. That wait suggests to me that the 9.30 note said something less than that.
  • 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?
    " 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."

    Well, Russia has had no problem kidnapping hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians from the areas they occupy. I daresay they'll be able to take anyone in the breakaway states who liked the way the breakaway governments behaved, and want to live under more of the same.

    I really don't like the idea of population movements of this type, but it might be the only answer.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    DavidL said:

    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.
    armour propre: superb, whether autocorrect or intentional.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,549
    edited September 2022
    NEW: Lib Dems cancel conference:

    “As we mourn the loss of The Queen, we send our condolences to The King and the Royal Family.

    Given the date of the funeral and period of national mourning, we have decided to cancel our Autumn Conference.”


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1568658332852039680

    Not entirely sure that was necessary - due to run 17th-20th they could have paused for the funeral (as the government advice gave as an option).
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,205
    I must confess I was busy Thursday afternoon and wasn't aware of what was going on.

    Reviewing the ITV Racing coverage, I see Ed Chamberlin was wearing a black tie which he did his best to hide by putting the microphone in front of it. I suspect many more people knew the gravity of the situation much earlier than was realised.

    I can only surmise there was a code within the PA report which had been disseminated to the media and others suggesting death was near. As someone said at the time, SKY and BBC News presenters were in black ties well before the official announcement of the late Queen's passing.
  • Vladimir Putin wins race to be first world leader to congratulate Charles III for becoming King
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/10/vladimir-putin-becomes-first-world-leader-congratulate-king/ (£££)

    King Charles should have something ready for Russia's next president, possibly in a week or so.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,615
    Putin’s probably relieved all the worlds attention is on the Queen not his clusterfxck in Ukraine .
  • nico679 said:

    Putin’s probably relieved all the worlds attention is on the Queen not his clusterfxck in Ukraine .

    Maybe we should invite him to the funeral, everyone can take the piss
  • Fake news about Extinction Rebellion. As their initials indicate, I'm sure they will mourn the end of Elizabeth's Reign along with the rest of us.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    armour propre: superb, whether autocorrect or intentional.
    It’s certainly wounded.
  • NEW: Lib Dems cancel conference:

    “As we mourn the loss of The Queen, we send our condolences to The King and the Royal Family.

    Given the date of the funeral and period of national mourning, we have decided to cancel our Autumn Conference.”


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1568658332852039680

    Not entirely sure that was necessary - due to run 17th-20th they could have paused for the funeral (as the government advice gave as an option).

    They should refer to her as "the late Queen". "The Queen" is Camilla.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,746
    edited September 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    armour propre: superb, whether autocorrect or intentional.
    Oh yea of so little faith.

    And so much experience😉
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649

    NEW: Lib Dems cancel conference:

    “As we mourn the loss of The Queen, we send our condolences to The King and the Royal Family.

    Given the date of the funeral and period of national mourning, we have decided to cancel our Autumn Conference.”


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1568658332852039680

    Not entirely sure that was necessary - due to run 17th-20th they could have paused for the funeral (as the government advice gave as an option).

    I think the Tories and Labour cancelling theirs and cancelling the recess would be seen as a positive step by the electorate and that they are taking the CoL crisis etc seriously
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,877
    Sandpit said:

    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!

    Technically, there’s a few ways to do it: see guides such as this.

    HOWEVER, as there are legal implications to the messages, tread very carefully, consult with a lawyer, and consider using a third-party IT company with legal experience
    to assist you. Doing it ‘wrong’ may result in ‘contaminated’ evidence.
    Thanks (and to Malmesbury). He will have to check out the legal side himself but I would hope that if he showed his employer - a very fruity tech co - that it’s not what it seems then it will not go further than a slap on the wrist and a course for old men working with younger women.

    It’s weird as I’m angry he didn’t think for himself that it’s not clever these days but then he’s also a bit naive and innocent so giving the benefit of doubt.

    He spoke to a female police friend who said that from a police perspective it doesn’t come anywhere close to sexual harassment but companies probably have a lower bar.

    Anyway thanks and will pass on.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    DavidL said:

    Leon 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.
    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
    He forgot Ukraine.
    Actually I got the quote wrong, and you are closer


    Kaczynski: Poland has only two allies - Ukraine and Britain

    “Times are changing, and from now on, based on our experience, we see that we have only two allies. First, this is Ukraine. And our second ally is England”
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    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.
    One step back from that, when did the phone last back ip to iCloud? If they were only recently deleted, the messages might be there.
  • 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?
    I understood that a large number of the formerly Russian leaning residents of a Luhansk and Donetsk so hated the tyranny of the last 8 years that they have switched to supporting Ukraine independent of their familial ties
    A large part of the original population of Crimea are also DPs. Especially Tatars. And how are you going to force the Russians to give up the Sebastopol base? Blow it to crap.
  • 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
    What seems unlikely is that Balmoral would tell the Prime Minister at 9.30 that death was imminent but not get around to summoning the family until several hours later. That wait suggests to me that the 9.30 note said something less than that.
    Interesting replies from (self-described) medics to that tweet:

    Michael Blyth
    @michaelblyth
    ·
    31m
    Every Dr in the country thought it was odd when people that morning were wishing her a speedy recovery

    Mike Henley 🤨
    @trentconsultant
    ·
    37m
    Replying to
    @JohnRentoul
    To be honest there’s a load about the events of the day (& the night before & weeks/months) that are obvious to most doctors. It’s all however simply over invasive. There are some other matters of importance if journalists have run out of useful things to say abt HMQ. Move on?


    ====

    What happened the night before?
  • NEW: Lib Dems cancel conference:

    “As we mourn the loss of The Queen, we send our condolences to The King and the Royal Family.

    Given the date of the funeral and period of national mourning, we have decided to cancel our Autumn Conference.”


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1568658332852039680

    Not entirely sure that was necessary - due to run 17th-20th they could have paused for the funeral (as the government advice gave as an option).

    Both of the Lib Dems will be devastated.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393
    Explosions reported at Russian military sites in Kherson city centre, in the past few minutes. Looks like a push there as well, as the enemy lines collapse further East.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,548

    nico679 said:

    Putin’s probably relieved all the worlds attention is on the Queen not his clusterfxck in Ukraine .

    Maybe we should invite him to the funeral, everyone can take the piss
    He might be trying to play the old Victorian connection. Vladimir, heir to Nicolas. Hi to Charles, heir to Victoria. We are almost cousins, and we have the same interest.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,069
    edited September 2022
    DavidL said:

    Leon 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.
    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
    He forgot Ukraine.
    Somehow I doubt that. Seeing as how Polish government is essentially Putinist sans Putin.

    Meaning they look upon Ukraine in same light as TSE regards France, even (or rather especially) when technically on same side.

    EDIT - this may be an exaggeration, but not much.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,887
    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Well you were the one complaining it "sounded like horrible EU speak" - but, yep, it's what it does that matters not what it's called. So let's park the name. As for the structure we can't design the detail here, we can only set out some general principles. Eg the spend needs to be commensurate with the threat, and the structure needs to strike the right balance between efficiency, cooperation, and democratic accountability and representation.

    That HAS to be an "ok, all on board", I think.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    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.
    Yes, because he had been told to suppress the truth; what is much more telling is Truss's tweet did NOT contain any equivalent wish.

    The Queen is dead.

    You were just informed of the Queen's death, at 7 pm on 10 September. See?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,746

    NEW: Lib Dems cancel conference:

    “As we mourn the loss of The Queen, we send our condolences to The King and the Royal Family.

    Given the date of the funeral and period of national mourning, we have decided to cancel our Autumn Conference.”


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1568658332852039680

    Not entirely sure that was necessary - due to run 17th-20th they could have paused for the funeral (as the government advice gave as an option).

    I think the Tories and Labour cancelling theirs and cancelling the recess would be seen as a positive step by the electorate and that they are taking the CoL crisis etc seriously
    Is there not legislation to get through to make Truss's scheme work? Think there must be.
  • Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon 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.
    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
    He forgot Ukraine.
    Actually I got the quote wrong, and you are closer


    Kaczynski: Poland has only two allies - Ukraine and Britain

    “Times are changing, and from now on, based on our experience, we see that we have only two allies. First, this is Ukraine. And our second ally is England”
    Ooh. What have Nippy and the Drake done to piss him off?
  • 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
    What seems unlikely is that Balmoral would tell the Prime Minister at 9.30 that death was imminent but not get around to summoning the family until several hours later. That wait suggests to me that the 9.30 note said something less than that.
    Interesting replies from (self-described) medics to that tweet:

    Michael Blyth
    @michaelblyth
    ·
    31m
    Every Dr in the country thought it was odd when people that morning were wishing her a speedy recovery

    Mike Henley 🤨
    @trentconsultant
    ·
    37m
    Replying to
    @JohnRentoul
    To be honest there’s a load about the events of the day (& the night before & weeks/months) that are obvious to most doctors. It’s all however simply over invasive. There are some other matters of importance if journalists have run out of useful things to say abt HMQ. Move on?


    ====

    What happened the night before?
    Also Telegraph saying helicopter for Charles was scrambling by 6:48am
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon 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.
    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
    He forgot Ukraine.
    Actually I got the quote wrong, and you are closer


    Kaczynski: Poland has only two allies - Ukraine and Britain

    “Times are changing, and from now on, based on our experience, we see that we have only two allies. First, this is Ukraine. And our second ally is England”
    Ooh. What have Nippy and the Drake done to piss him off?
    Especially given how much time the Poles spent in Scotland in WW2. Still very much remembered, and in recent years commemorated with statues and publicity to the Map of Scotland made at the former HQ.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    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
    What seems unlikely is that Balmoral would tell the Prime Minister at 9.30 that death was imminent but not get around to summoning the family until several hours later. That wait suggests to me that the 9.30 note said something less than that.
    Interesting replies from (self-described) medics to that tweet:

    Michael Blyth
    @michaelblyth
    ·
    31m
    Every Dr in the country thought it was odd when people that morning were wishing her a speedy recovery

    Mike Henley 🤨
    @trentconsultant
    ·
    37m
    Replying to
    @JohnRentoul
    To be honest there’s a load about the events of the day (& the night before & weeks/months) that are obvious to most doctors. It’s all however simply over invasive. There are some other matters of importance if journalists have run out of useful things to say abt HMQ. Move on?


    ====

    What happened the night before?
    She couldn't do a zoom PC meeting.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Yes, because he had been told to suppress the truth; what is much more telling is Truss's tweet did NOT contain any equivalent wish.

    The Queen is dead.

    You were just informed of the Queen's death, at 7 pm on 10 September. See?
    In an homage to yesterday.... your evidence Starmer is part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,313
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon 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.
    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
    He forgot Ukraine.
    Actually I got the quote wrong, and you are closer


    Kaczynski: Poland has only two allies - Ukraine and Britain

    “Times are changing, and from now on, based on our experience, we see that we have only two allies. First, this is Ukraine. And our second ally is England”
    This is more than anything else a reflection on the Polish government, and its odd view of the outside world. It isn't a particularly good position to be in, only having two allies.
  • 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.
    It was founded in 1999. Nearly a quarter of a century on, how do you think it’s doing?
    Not in the sense I mean.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,746
    Leon said:

    The news from Ukraine is stupefying. IF - if if if - Ukraine can hold on to these gains - or even extend them - it is one of the greatest military “campaigns” in modern history

    I’m trying and failing to think of its equal. A supposedly inferior power completely shattering a “superpower”

    Fall of Saigon? Fall of Singapore? Possibly even the fall of Kabul. But its in that sort of order.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,887

    Fake news about Extinction Rebellion. As their initials indicate, I'm sure they will mourn the end of Elizabeth's Reign along with the rest of us.

    Hope you did that 25/1 on SA ...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon 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.
    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
    He forgot Ukraine.
    Actually I got the quote wrong, and you are closer


    Kaczynski: Poland has only two allies - Ukraine and Britain

    “Times are changing, and from now on, based on our experience, we see that we have only two allies. First, this is Ukraine. And our second ally is England”
    This is more than anything else a reflection on the Polish government, and its odd view of the outside world. It isn't a particularly good position to be in, only having two allies.
    Poor translation methinks. He means, there are just two significant European countries we can completely rely on. GB and Ukraine

    And he’s probably right
  • IshmaelZ 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

    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
    What seems unlikely is that Balmoral would tell the Prime Minister at 9.30 that death was imminent but not get around to summoning the family until several hours later. That wait suggests to me that the 9.30 note said something less than that.
    Interesting replies from (self-described) medics to that tweet:

    Michael Blyth
    @michaelblyth
    ·
    31m
    Every Dr in the country thought it was odd when people that morning were wishing her a speedy recovery

    Mike Henley 🤨
    @trentconsultant
    ·
    37m
    Replying to
    @JohnRentoul
    To be honest there’s a load about the events of the day (& the night before & weeks/months) that are obvious to most doctors. It’s all however simply over invasive. There are some other matters of importance if journalists have run out of useful things to say abt HMQ. Move on?


    ====

    What happened the night before?
    She couldn't do a zoom PC meeting.
    Oh yes, I had forgotten. But that doesn't exactly equate to she is hours from death surely?

    The day before she was waving a happy goodbye to her worst prime minister.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,167

    IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Yes, because he had been told to suppress the truth; what is much more telling is Truss's tweet did NOT contain any equivalent wish.

    The Queen is dead.

    You were just informed of the Queen's death, at 7 pm on 10 September. See?
    In an homage to yesterday.... your evidence Starmer is part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth?
    Is it that difficult to believe? I'm pretty sure half the news channels were doing that for hours as soon as they'd got their black ties on.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,205


    " 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."

    Well, Russia has had no problem kidnapping hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians from the areas they occupy. I daresay they'll be able to take anyone in the breakaway states who liked the way the breakaway governments behaved, and want to live under more of the same.

    I really don't like the idea of population movements of this type, but it might be the only answer.

    Neither do I and "ethnic cleansing" (for want of a better term) is something we've seen repeatedly in history and on many occasions in the 20th Century and the Russians are past masters at orchestrating such population movements - that's one of the reasons why the Crimea problem exists because the Tatars were forcibly expelled to Siberia by Stalin and replaced by Russians.

    Clearing the ethnic Russians from the Donbas may be the only long-term solution but the Crimea is more of a problem. Just under 2/3 of the Crimean population (or roughly 1.5 million people) are Russian. That doesn't make them all fans of Putin and Moscow by any stretch but only 15% of the population is Ukrainian and as we know allowing minorities to rule majorities rarely ends well.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,375
    edited September 2022
    The Guardan's on top of all the big news again tonight - the Lib Dems' Autumn Conference has been cancelled.

    Some moments just bring a sense of the epic scale of what we're living through. The proportions.
  • 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.
    The UK-Poland-Ukraine alliance will be the solid basis, *if* the UK keeps up with Poland and Ukraine. Otherwise those two countries will do it without us.
  • kinabalu said:

    Fake news about Extinction Rebellion. As their initials indicate, I'm sure they will mourn the end of Elizabeth's Reign along with the rest of us.

    Hope you did that 25/1 on SA ...
    I did! £20. You never know......
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    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
    What seems unlikely is that Balmoral would tell the Prime Minister at 9.30 that death was imminent but not get around to summoning the family until several hours later. That wait suggests to me that the 9.30 note said something less than that.
    If it was me, and I was a Royal with no job to go to and RAF flights to be had for the asking, I'd have got my arse up there on hearing she couldn't do a zoom call.

    Also, speaking as a medical man, I'd suggest looking at the her n Truss photographs and googling facies hippocratica.
  • John Simpson
    @JohnSimpsonNews
    ·
    29m
    Pro-Russian civilians have been told to leave Kharkiv & escape to Russia to save lives, according to the Russian news agency TASS. Earlier, Ukrainian forces took the key railway hub of Kupiansk, cutting major Russian army supply route. It’s starting to look serious for Putin.
  • NEW: Lib Dems cancel conference:

    “As we mourn the loss of The Queen, we send our condolences to The King and the Royal Family.

    Given the date of the funeral and period of national mourning, we have decided to cancel our Autumn Conference.”


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1568658332852039680

    Not entirely sure that was necessary - due to run 17th-20th they could have paused for the funeral (as the government advice gave as an option).

    They should refer to her as "the late Queen". "The Queen" is Camilla.
    They’re not the only ones - this BBC report repeatedly refers to “the Queen’s coffin” and also mentions “the King and Camilla”. They’re the national broadcaster for goodness sake.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62861617

  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    IshmaelZ 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

    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
    What seems unlikely is that Balmoral would tell the Prime Minister at 9.30 that death was imminent but not get around to summoning the family until several hours later. That wait suggests to me that the 9.30 note said something less than that.
    Interesting replies from (self-described) medics to that tweet:

    Michael Blyth
    @michaelblyth
    ·
    31m
    Every Dr in the country thought it was odd when people that morning were wishing her a speedy recovery

    Mike Henley 🤨
    @trentconsultant
    ·
    37m
    Replying to
    @JohnRentoul
    To be honest there’s a load about the events of the day (& the night before & weeks/months) that are obvious to most doctors. It’s all however simply over invasive. There are some other matters of importance if journalists have run out of useful things to say abt HMQ. Move on?


    ====

    What happened the night before?
    She couldn't do a zoom PC meeting.
    Oh yes, I had forgotten. But that doesn't exactly equate to she is hours from death surely?

    The day before she was waving a happy goodbye to her worst prime minister.
    I certainly hope people don’t assume I’m at death’s door every time I cancel a boring work Zoom meeting.

  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    Leon said:

    The news from Ukraine is stupefying. IF - if if if - Ukraine can hold on to these gains - or even extend them - it is one of the greatest military “campaigns” in modern history

    I’m trying and failing to think of its equal. A supposedly inferior power completely shattering a “superpower”

    I think the 'winter war' in Finland is the obvious example,

    The difference being, although Finland did amazingly it did 'lose' not in the way predidicaed at the start or that Stalin had expected, but they did give up territory. AIUI that was largely down to the Finns being almost completely out of ammunition, perhaps if Finland had received help in the form of ammunition the way Ukraine has the Soviet Union might have fallen much quicker?!?! mind you we we were a little distracted with WW2 at the time, so not blaming anybody.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Yes, because he had been told to suppress the truth; what is much more telling is Truss's tweet did NOT contain any equivalent wish.

    The Queen is dead.

    You were just informed of the Queen's death, at 7 pm on 10 September. See?
    In an homage to yesterday.... your evidence Starmer is part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth?
    Don't be silly, these things are always a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Look at what BP did say, which was that she was "comfortable." Surely you don't dispute that that means in a medically induced coma, "in good spirits" being the code for conscious?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    John Simpson
    @JohnSimpsonNews
    ·
    29m
    Pro-Russian civilians have been told to leave Kharkiv & escape to Russia to save lives, according to the Russian news agency TASS. Earlier, Ukrainian forces took the key railway hub of Kupiansk, cutting major Russian army supply route. It’s starting to look serious for Putin.

    Told? By whom/who? the Pro Russia puppet 'government' of Kharkiv, the Russian army or the Ukrainians?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    GIN1138 said:
    Yes dreadful, and Mills behind him can see how dreadful it is. When people show you who they are believe them.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649

    IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Yes, because he had been told to suppress the truth; what is much more telling is Truss's tweet did NOT contain any equivalent wish.

    The Queen is dead.

    You were just informed of the Queen's death, at 7 pm on 10 September. See?
    In an homage to yesterday.... your evidence Starmer is part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth?
    Is it that difficult to believe? I'm pretty sure half the news channels were doing that for hours as soon as they'd got their black ties on.
    Yes, it is. He simply would not make reference to wishing her a recovery. How the fuck would that look when the truth emerges?! Why on Earth would the Palace put news readers in the position of lying to the public for a few hours? Put a black tie on but lie about HMQ's status lads, its for the lolz.
    Occams razor - they first knew when they say they knew.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,146
    edited September 2022
    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?
    Yes, both are in the same place - in the East of our planet Earth.

    The entire world is interconnected, we don't have imperial spheres of influence.

    What sort of engagement should we be prepping for? War in Taiwan/Pacific seems the biggest risk and would be as catastrophic as Putin's war, which is why we should do all we can to prevent it.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    GIN1138 said:
    Again, ignores all the lead up which sets it in context. Twitter users really are almost always, seemingly, lying self-obsessed twats.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,375
    edited September 2022
    GIN1138 said:
    Charles will need to do quite a lot of learning fast about more careful grace in public, as he was also the one who wanted this ceremony televised in the first place, for example, wanting greater visibility and modernity too. I think he will.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    The news from Ukraine is stupefying. IF - if if if - Ukraine can hold on to these gains - or even extend them - it is one of the greatest military “campaigns” in modern history

    I’m trying and failing to think of its equal. A supposedly inferior power completely shattering a “superpower”

    Fall of Saigon? Fall of Singapore? Possibly even the fall of Kabul. But its in that sort of order.
    Good examples

    The closest match might actually be the Russo-Japanese war of 1905

    An unprovoked attack, Russia expecting to win easily against a weaker neighbour….
  • DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    The news from Ukraine is stupefying. IF - if if if - Ukraine can hold on to these gains - or even extend them - it is one of the greatest military “campaigns” in modern history

    I’m trying and failing to think of its equal. A supposedly inferior power completely shattering a “superpower”

    Fall of Saigon? Fall of Singapore? Possibly even the fall of Kabul. But its in that sort of order.
    Malaya 1941-2 is obvious 20th-century precursor (in some sense anyway) to current Russian debacle.

    Fall of Saigon was hardly a surprise by time it happened, just waiting to happen.

    And ditto for Kabul, which is ALWAYS falling to somebody or other, more often anyway than a Scottish "generation"!

    But British defeat in Malaya was NOT expected by anybody EXCEPT the Japanese.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    biggles said:

    IshmaelZ 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

    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
    What seems unlikely is that Balmoral would tell the Prime Minister at 9.30 that death was imminent but not get around to summoning the family until several hours later. That wait suggests to me that the 9.30 note said something less than that.
    Interesting replies from (self-described) medics to that tweet:

    Michael Blyth
    @michaelblyth
    ·
    31m
    Every Dr in the country thought it was odd when people that morning were wishing her a speedy recovery

    Mike Henley 🤨
    @trentconsultant
    ·
    37m
    Replying to
    @JohnRentoul
    To be honest there’s a load about the events of the day (& the night before & weeks/months) that are obvious to most doctors. It’s all however simply over invasive. There are some other matters of importance if journalists have run out of useful things to say abt HMQ. Move on?


    ====

    What happened the night before?
    She couldn't do a zoom PC meeting.
    Oh yes, I had forgotten. But that doesn't exactly equate to she is hours from death surely?

    The day before she was waving a happy goodbye to her worst prime minister.
    I certainly hope people don’t assume I’m at death’s door every time I cancel a boring work Zoom meeting.

    You perhaps don't live for your work duties as HMQ famously did, and this was a seriously important meeting (hard to remember but we had a new PM on Tuesday).
  • I wonder if @Dynamo has been liquidated in today’s Moscow purges?

    Might explain his grumpiness of late, if he suspected what was coming.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,818

    John Simpson
    @JohnSimpsonNews
    ·
    29m
    Pro-Russian civilians have been told to leave Kharkiv & escape to Russia to save lives, according to the Russian news agency TASS. Earlier, Ukrainian forces took the key railway hub of Kupiansk, cutting major Russian army supply route. It’s starting to look serious for Putin.

    He's many many miles behind already.

    Apparently Donetsk airport is under Ukrainian control and there's a picture of their forces in Severodonetsk and Lysychansk.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,146
    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.
    Entirely reconcilable.

    Some countries want to do the right thing, they shouldn't be bound to those that don't. We absolutely can and should encourage and recognise those that do, while chastising those who don't, but its a free world.
  • Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon 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.
    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
    He forgot Ukraine.
    Actually I got the quote wrong, and you are closer


    Kaczynski: Poland has only two allies - Ukraine and Britain

    “Times are changing, and from now on, based on our experience, we see that we have only two allies. First, this is Ukraine. And our second ally is England”
    Ooh. What have Nippy and the Drake done to piss him off?
    Probably too woke for anti abortion, anti gay, anti judiciary, anti EU guy. The current ‘English’ gov much more to his taste though.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    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 will be governed by the prepared defensive lines of the breakaway areas.

    It will be easy for UKR to sweep all before it until they reach prepared defensive positions.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,243
    Cue smart guys saying the candidate with big leads needs to step aside for 2024, NOW.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:
    Yes dreadful, and Mills behind him can see how dreadful it is. When people show you who they are believe them.
    Dreadful is hyperbole. Ungracious and untelegenic yes

    I know plenty of people that know him and say he is a bit precious, but quite friendly, and capable of charm; these same people say Andrew is an absolute c*nt so they are not royalists

    He lacks his mother’s remarkable poise, but who doesn’t? We now learn how blessed we were
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568
    edited September 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:
    Yes dreadful, and Mills behind him can see how dreadful it is. When people show you who they are believe them.
    Camilla looks properly embarrassed at his behaviour doesn't she?

    Trying to be kind he IS under a lot of grief and stress at the moment... But then you remember all the rumours about about his behviour towards staff over the years as well as Diana's assessement of him all those years ago (not up to the "top job") and it makes you wonder what we're in for with the reign of King Charles III...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Yes, because he had been told to suppress the truth; what is much more telling is Truss's tweet did NOT contain any equivalent wish.

    The Queen is dead.

    You were just informed of the Queen's death, at 7 pm on 10 September. See?
    In an homage to yesterday.... your evidence Starmer is part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth?
    Is it that difficult to believe? I'm pretty sure half the news channels were doing that for hours as soon as they'd got their black ties on.
    Yes, it is. He simply would not make reference to wishing her a recovery. How the fuck would that look when the truth emerges?! Why on Earth would the Palace put news readers in the position of lying to the public for a few hours? Put a black tie on but lie about HMQ's status lads, its for the lolz.
    Occams razor - they first knew when they say they knew.
    Occam's razor, the last refuge of the moron. The rule says entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, it is a rule of thumb only in metaphysics only, and it does not mean the stupidest explanation is usually correct. And your thesis is utterly self-stutifying because black tie = person dead, so newsreaders wearing them were saying two different things anyway.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Alistair said:

    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 will be governed by the prepared defensive lines of the breakaway areas.

    It will be easy for UKR to sweep all before it until they reach prepared defensive positions.
    i honestly think their only “prepared defensive position” is the Russian frontier, and maybe the isthmus of Crimea

    All else looks vulnerable
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,167

    IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Yes, because he had been told to suppress the truth; what is much more telling is Truss's tweet did NOT contain any equivalent wish.

    The Queen is dead.

    You were just informed of the Queen's death, at 7 pm on 10 September. See?
    In an homage to yesterday.... your evidence Starmer is part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth?
    Is it that difficult to believe? I'm pretty sure half the news channels were doing that for hours as soon as they'd got their black ties on.
    Yes, it is. He simply would not make reference to wishing her a recovery. How the fuck would that look when the truth emerges?! Why on Earth would the Palace put news readers in the position of lying to the public for a few hours? Put a black tie on but lie about HMQ's status lads, its for the lolz.
    Occams razor - they first knew when they say they knew.
    You think all the newsreaders and presenters spontaneously decided to move to their black ties etc. hours in advance of the official announcement "just in case"? I'm finding that very hard to believe.

    It isn't about lying to the public per se - but I suspect it was very much about controlling the release of the information in a dignified way.

    Literally everyone was wishing her a speedy recovery right up to the announcement - because that's the only thing you can say until it's officially announced that no recovery is possible.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    edited September 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Yes, because he had been told to suppress the truth; what is much more telling is Truss's tweet did NOT contain any equivalent wish.

    The Queen is dead.

    You were just informed of the Queen's death, at 7 pm on 10 September. See?
    In an homage to yesterday.... your evidence Starmer is part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth?
    Don't be silly, these things are always a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Look at what BP did say, which was that she was "comfortable." Surely you don't dispute that that means in a medically induced coma, "in good spirits" being the code for conscious?
    No i don't dispute it at all. They were clearly all aware she was dying. Imminently. You are claiming they were told she had died. They hadn't.
    What was the purpose behind suppressing the news for 6 hours? If it was being suppressed why did news casters put black ties on? As a subtle nudge nudge? Is it likely news people were informed before the arriving members of the royal family? Or are we to believe William et al were told by phone call whilst en route?

    Everyone knew she was gravely ill and dying.
    None of them knew she was dead
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,965
    GIN1138 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:
    Yes dreadful, and Mills behind him can see how dreadful it is. When people show you who they are believe them.
    Camilla looks properly embarrassed at his behaviour doesn't she?

    Trying to be kind he IS under a lot of grief and stress at the moment... But then you remember all the rumours about about his behviour towards staff over the years as well as Diana's assessement of him all those years ago (not up to the "top job") and it makes you wonder what we're in for with the reign of King Charles III...
    In a similar situation the Queen would have just given "one of her looks" and that's all it would take. And everyone would laugh and say "she's not happy!"
  • WillG said:

    It is curious that those who were once telling us that Russian victory was so inevitable that Ukraine should surrender immediately are now telling us that Ukraine must bend over backwards to accommodate the Russians in victory. The shilling is painfully obvious.

    The whole of Ukraine should and will be liberated by the AFU. They have been the borders of Ukraine since independence and were guaranteed by Russia, the UK and the US. The lies about the residents of the Donbass being Russian really, because they can speak two languages or have a Russian cousin, will be shown up for what they are. As a modern, democratic country Ukraine will allow people of all ethnicities to be part of the country, as long as they did not collaborate with the fascist invaders. Those that did collaborate will be held to account for their treason.

    Retaliation against collaborators would be a sure way of alienating the United States.
  • 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?
    I don't know about Sevastopol but for the other point, how about arrangements similar to those for the Serb entity within Bosnia/Hercegovina?
  • I've noticed two things today, both rather interesting.

    Firstly, everyone has been unfailingly polite and smiley, to everyone. I've noticed this driving, walking, taking the train, shopping.. everywhere. Sometimes people ignore you, avoid eye contact or get frustrated. Not today. Maybe people want positivity and to be uplifted.

    Second, almost every conversation I've overheard has included the Queen and the Royal family. Not constantly. But I've heard it mentioned everywhere.

    Lots of people are going about their lives as normal. But, it's preying on people's minds.
  • 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.
    Entirely reconcilable.

    Some countries want to do the right thing, they shouldn't be bound to those that don't. We absolutely can and should encourage and recognise those that do, while chastising those who don't, but its a free world.
    Yeah, well I did say someone with a capacity for self analysis.
  • 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?
    I don't know about Sevastopol but for the other point, how about arrangements similar to those for the Serb entity within Bosnia/Hercegovina?
    I believe that’s not what one might call a dead issue.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Yes, because he had been told to suppress the truth; what is much more telling is Truss's tweet did NOT contain any equivalent wish.

    The Queen is dead.

    You were just informed of the Queen's death, at 7 pm on 10 September. See?
    In an homage to yesterday.... your evidence Starmer is part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth?
    Don't be silly, these things are always a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Look at what BP did say, which was that she was "comfortable." Surely you don't dispute that that means in a medically induced coma, "in good spirits" being the code for conscious?
    No i don't dispute it at all. They were clearly all aware she was dying. Imminently. You are claiming they were told she had died. They hadn't.
    What was the purpose behind suppressing the news for 6 hours? If it was being suppressed why did news casters put black ties on? As a subtle nudge nudge? Is it likely news people were informed before the arriving members of the royal family? Or are we to believe William et al were told by phone call whilst en route?

    Everyone knew she was gravely ill and dying.
    None of them knew she was dead
    It was a clusterfuck, but what you think is your best point is the best point against you. Black tie = HMQ dead, and that is the ONLY thing it means.
  • GIN1138 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:
    Yes dreadful, and Mills behind him can see how dreadful it is. When people show you who they are believe them.
    Camilla looks properly embarrassed at his behaviour doesn't she?

    Trying to be kind he IS under a lot of grief and stress at the moment... But then you remember all the rumours about about his behviour towards staff over the years as well as Diana's assessement of him all those years ago (not up to the "top job") and it makes you wonder what we're in for with the reign of King Charles III...
    What was the alternative? Simply to wait? Perhaps. My reaction at the time was that it looked terrible but also showed a lack of rehearsal or forethought in planning. The desk was too small; the pens were in the wrong place to start with; why were there several of them but not one each?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,221
    Ukraine’s southern offensive ‘was designed to trick Russia’

    Exclusive: Russian forces wrong-footed by attack in Kharkiv region after preparing for offensive in the south

    The much-publicised Ukrainian southern offensive was a disinformation campaign to distract Russia from the real one being prepared in the Kharkiv region, Ukraine’s special forces have said.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/10/ukraines-publicised-southern-offensive-was-disinformation-campaign
  • WillGWillG Posts: 942

    WillG said:

    It is curious that those who were once telling us that Russian victory was so inevitable that Ukraine should surrender immediately are now telling us that Ukraine must bend over backwards to accommodate the Russians in victory. The shilling is painfully obvious.

    The whole of Ukraine should and will be liberated by the AFU. They have been the borders of Ukraine since independence and were guaranteed by Russia, the UK and the US. The lies about the residents of the Donbass being Russian really, because they can speak two languages or have a Russian cousin, will be shown up for what they are. As a modern, democratic country Ukraine will allow people of all ethnicities to be part of the country, as long as they did not collaborate with the fascist invaders. Those that did collaborate will be held to account for their treason.

    Retaliation against collaborators would be a sure way of alienating the United States.
    Not at all. Ukraine, as it moves away from Russian arbitrary government, seeks to be a country of laws. There are laws against treason and they will be enforced.
  • WillG said:

    It is curious that those who were once telling us that Russian victory was so inevitable that Ukraine should surrender immediately are now telling us that Ukraine must bend over backwards to accommodate the Russians in victory. The shilling is painfully obvious.

    The whole of Ukraine should and will be liberated by the AFU. They have been the borders of Ukraine since independence and were guaranteed by Russia, the UK and the US. The lies about the residents of the Donbass being Russian really, because they can speak two languages or have a Russian cousin, will be shown up for what they are. As a modern, democratic country Ukraine will allow people of all ethnicities to be part of the country, as long as they did not collaborate with the fascist invaders. Those that did collaborate will be held to account for their treason.

    Retaliation against collaborators would be a sure way of alienating the United States.
    Some have already been sentenced to long prison sentences. And others have been assassinated.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393
    edited September 2022

    WillG said:

    It is curious that those who were once telling us that Russian victory was so inevitable that Ukraine should surrender immediately are now telling us that Ukraine must bend over backwards to accommodate the Russians in victory. The shilling is painfully obvious.

    The whole of Ukraine should and will be liberated by the AFU. They have been the borders of Ukraine since independence and were guaranteed by Russia, the UK and the US. The lies about the residents of the Donbass being Russian really, because they can speak two languages or have a Russian cousin, will be shown up for what they are. As a modern, democratic country Ukraine will allow people of all ethnicities to be part of the country, as long as they did not collaborate with the fascist invaders. Those that did collaborate will be held to account for their treason.

    Retaliation against collaborators would be a sure way of alienating the United States.
    The ‘retaliation’ would be in the form of a trial and imprisonment, for those committing war crimes in Ukraine.

    The Ukranians have shown themselves to be unimaginably disciplined, given the stories of murder, rape, torture and theft, by the invading forces and their collaborators.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,205


    A large part of the original population of Crimea are also DPs. Especially Tatars. And how are you going to force the Russians to give up the Sebastopol base? Blow it to crap.

    Far be it for me to interrupt your nonsense with a few facts but here goes...

    65% of the population of Crimea are ethnic Russians - that doesn't make them pro-Putin, doesn't make them pro-Zelenskyy either.

    15% are Ukrainian, 10.5% or so are Crimean Tatars.

    Minorities ruling majorities is rarely a recipe for long term order - perhaps we should ask all the Crimeans what they want before imposing Ukrainian rule on them (which happened before in the mid-90s and didn't end well).

    As for Sebastopol, while I'm no supporter of the "blowing it to crap" school of diplomacy, in 2014 Putin unilaterally abrogated the commercial agreement which had been made with Kyiv which had extended the original 20 year lease for a further 25 years (ending in 2042). On that basis, the Ukraine can presumably occupy it for themselves.

    This is another example of Putin's stupidity and arrogance - at no point, for example, did China abrogate the lease with us over Hong Kong. They simply waited until the lease ended knowing the UK's position, if they tried to remain, would be unsupportable in international law.

    Putin could have kept the lease knowing Russia's position, even after its military humiliation, would still allow it to remain in the naval base but he's not good at that kind of long-term strategic thinking and will hopefully pay the price for it.
  • WillG said:

    It is curious that those who were once telling us that Russian victory was so inevitable that Ukraine should surrender immediately are now telling us that Ukraine must bend over backwards to accommodate the Russians in victory. The shilling is painfully obvious.

    The whole of Ukraine should and will be liberated by the AFU. They have been the borders of Ukraine since independence and were guaranteed by Russia, the UK and the US. The lies about the residents of the Donbass being Russian really, because they can speak two languages or have a Russian cousin, will be shown up for what they are. As a modern, democratic country Ukraine will allow people of all ethnicities to be part of the country, as long as they did not collaborate with the fascist invaders. Those that did collaborate will be held to account for their treason.

    A striking deboo
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    tlg86 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:
    Yes dreadful, and Mills behind him can see how dreadful it is. When people show you who they are believe them.
    Camilla looks properly embarrassed at his behaviour doesn't she?

    Trying to be kind he IS under a lot of grief and stress at the moment... But then you remember all the rumours about about his behviour towards staff over the years as well as Diana's assessement of him all those years ago (not up to the "top job") and it makes you wonder what we're in for with the reign of King Charles III...
    In a similar situation the Queen would have just given "one of her looks" and that's all it would take. And everyone would laugh and say "she's not happy!"
    Yes, it’s an enormous social skill to be able to express a need, want, irritation, whatever, with just a tilt of the head, thereby offering no offence. She had it. He doesn’t. Few do

    Chas should have looked to his right, smiled ironically, gestured airily at the misplaced pen, this followed by an amiable shrug as the flunkey moved in to sort it out. No one offended; all fixed

    Boris has this ability, to disarm, even while making people do your bidding

    But the new King is under intense pressure
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    It is curious that those who were once telling us that Russian victory was so inevitable that Ukraine should surrender immediately are now telling us that Ukraine must bend over backwards to accommodate the Russians in victory. The shilling is painfully obvious.

    The whole of Ukraine should and will be liberated by the AFU. They have been the borders of Ukraine since independence and were guaranteed by Russia, the UK and the US. The lies about the residents of the Donbass being Russian really, because they can speak two languages or have a Russian cousin, will be shown up for what they are. As a modern, democratic country Ukraine will allow people of all ethnicities to be part of the country, as long as they did not collaborate with the fascist invaders. Those that did collaborate will be held to account for their treason.

    Retaliation against collaborators would be a sure way of alienating the United States.
    Not at all. Ukraine, as it moves away from Russian arbitrary government, seeks to be a country of laws. There are laws against treason and they will be enforced.
    Jawohl. How do you have privileged insight on this point and why are you telling us about it?
  • WillG said:

    WillG said:

    It is curious that those who were once telling us that Russian victory was so inevitable that Ukraine should surrender immediately are now telling us that Ukraine must bend over backwards to accommodate the Russians in victory. The shilling is painfully obvious.

    The whole of Ukraine should and will be liberated by the AFU. They have been the borders of Ukraine since independence and were guaranteed by Russia, the UK and the US. The lies about the residents of the Donbass being Russian really, because they can speak two languages or have a Russian cousin, will be shown up for what they are. As a modern, democratic country Ukraine will allow people of all ethnicities to be part of the country, as long as they did not collaborate with the fascist invaders. Those that did collaborate will be held to account for their treason.

    Retaliation against collaborators would be a sure way of alienating the United States.
    Not at all. Ukraine, as it moves away from Russian arbitrary government, seeks to be a country of laws. There are laws against treason and they will be enforced.
    Ukraine is dependent on the goodwill of the United States. It would be a courageous move to alienate their most powerful ally whose supply of money, arms and intelligence has been crucial to the successful defence of Ukraine.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    GIN1138 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:
    Yes dreadful, and Mills behind him can see how dreadful it is. When people show you who they are believe them.
    Camilla looks properly embarrassed at his behaviour doesn't she?

    Trying to be kind he IS under a lot of grief and stress at the moment... But then you remember all the rumours about about his behviour towards staff over the years as well as Diana's assessement of him all those years ago (not up to the "top job") and it makes you wonder what we're in for with the reign of King Charles III...
    What was the alternative? Simply to wait? Perhaps. My reaction at the time was that it looked terrible but also showed a lack of rehearsal or forethought in planning. The desk was too small; the pens were in the wrong place to start with; why were there several of them but not one each?
    Well, sort it yourself or good humouredly ask someone else to do so.
  • NEW: Lib Dems cancel conference:

    “As we mourn the loss of The Queen, we send our condolences to The King and the Royal Family.

    Given the date of the funeral and period of national mourning, we have decided to cancel our Autumn Conference.”


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1568658332852039680

    Not entirely sure that was necessary - due to run 17th-20th they could have paused for the funeral (as the government advice gave as an option).

    They should refer to her as "the late Queen". "The Queen" is Camilla.
    Camilla is "the Queen", "The Queen" will always be QEII.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 942
    stodge said:


    A large part of the original population of Crimea are also DPs. Especially Tatars. And how are you going to force the Russians to give up the Sebastopol base? Blow it to crap.

    Far be it for me to interrupt your nonsense with a few facts but here goes...

    65% of the population of Crimea are ethnic Russians - that doesn't make them pro-Putin, doesn't make them pro-Zelenskyy either.

    15% are Ukrainian, 10.5% or so are Crimean Tatars.

    Minorities ruling majorities is rarely a recipe for long term order - perhaps we should ask all the Crimeans what they want before imposing Ukrainian rule on them (which happened before in the mid-90s and didn't end well).

    Ukraine is a sovereign country and Crimea is a legal part of its territory. It is not up to the great powers to divide up its territory to their own liking. The only reason things have not "ended well" is because of external aggression. The solution to not repeating the situation is better policing of that external aggression.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    edited September 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Yes, because he had been told to suppress the truth; what is much more telling is Truss's tweet did NOT contain any equivalent wish.

    The Queen is dead.

    You were just informed of the Queen's death, at 7 pm on 10 September. See?
    In an homage to yesterday.... your evidence Starmer is part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth?
    Is it that difficult to believe? I'm pretty sure half the news channels were doing that for hours as soon as they'd got their black ties on.
    Yes, it is. He simply would not make reference to wishing her a recovery. How the fuck would that look when the truth emerges?! Why on Earth would the Palace put news readers in the position of lying to the public for a few hours? Put a black tie on but lie about HMQ's status lads, its for the lolz.
    Occams razor - they first knew when they say they knew.
    Occam's razor, the last refuge of the moron. The rule says entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, it is a rule of thumb only in metaphysics only, and it does not mean the stupidest explanation is usually correct. And your thesis is utterly self-stutifying because black tie = person dead, so newsreaders wearing them were saying two different things anyway.
    'The stupidest explanation' - that everyone was told the news when they say they were told the news?
    As opposed to your brilliantly deductive explanation that the Leader of the Opposition was wishing a dead Queen a recovery because he'd been told to keep it schtum and newsreaders were, at different times, changing into black ties because she was dead but the information she was dead was not being released, so they sort of hinted it without engaging any other protocols on banners, screen layouts etc.
    I'm done with this
    If it transpires any news caster or LOTO had been informed of Her Majesty's death (not that she was at deaths door but that she had expired) before the 'official' time given of 4.30 i will offer you an unreserved apology and pay £10 to your choice of charity.
This discussion has been closed.