It's looking like Putin's immediate concern is securing Moscow, rather than establishing a line of defence in occupied Ukraine.
Andrea Gilli @aa_gilli In Moscow, squares are being closed off. Ok. However, I would urge some also to close their windows: you never know, birds, rain, wind, or wind currents which drain you from your 3rd floor apt and make you fall from the 6th.
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 yout choice of charity.
you are not making sense even on your own terms. Why, in your view, did the news bods put on black ties?
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
Welcome to PB, @WillG - you’re Ukranian? A good dayweek for the defenders.
I think that when the Sebastopol Bell has finished its Queen Elizabeth duties in the coming days they should send it to the Ukrainians to hang in Kyiv Cathedral.
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
But how do you know? Are you Ukrainian? In the UK prosecutions for treason need approval from the DPP because there's very often public policy grounds for not bringing them.
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.
Assuming that the elements of the Russian army remaining in that theatre have the will and co-ordination to re-occupy and defend any such positions before they are overrun. At this stage of the game the tinpot puppet "republics" likely lack the means.
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.
Come on - you can do better than that.
The position of the Crimea can't just be waved away in a sentence. It's far more complex than that and if you read your history of the mid 90s, the Ukraine weren't always fair and even in their dealings with the Peninsula.
I think the Crimean people should be allowed a say in their future (as has happened before). They will, I suspect, prefer neither to be ruled by Kyiv nor Moscow. If that's their wish, so be it.
Imposing Ukrainian rule on them based on some spurious legality from the Soviet era, while better than a Russian coup de main, is still not how we should be behaving towards the Crimean people.
It's looking like Putin's immediate concern is securing Moscow, rather than establishing a line of defence in occupied Ukraine.
Andrea Gilli @aa_gilli In Moscow, squares are being closed off. Ok. However, I would urge some also to close their windows: you never know, birds, rain, wind, or wind currents which drain you from your 3rd floor apt and make you fall from the 6th.
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 yout choice of charity.
you are not making sense even on your own terms. Why, in your view, did the news bods put on black ties?
I assume because they were fully aware the news was imminent. They didn't all change at the same time. 'She wont survive the day'. I've said what i think, if i am wrong you will have an apology and a charitable donation.
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!"
You can tell a lot about people by how they treat those who work with/for them.
Charles is no Elizabeth.
But to be fair to him, he is grieving and ought to be retired himself.
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.
You don't have much confidence in your own case either. Why do you limit it to LOTO and newsreaders, when the argument started out as being about whether the PM was informed of her death in the NZ note just after midday?
ETA and yes, you illustrate very well the idiocy of drooling appeals to Occam's bloody razor.
Say I set up a stall in Oxford street under a banner saying FREE £50 NOTES TO EVERYBODY CALLED ZEBEDEE. Are you saying Hur hur hur, Occam says that all these guys are saying they are called Zebedee, because they are called Zebedee?
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.
Come on - you can do better than that.
The position of the Crimea can't just be waved away in a sentence. It's far more complex than that and if you read your history of the mid 90s, the Ukraine weren't always fair and even in their dealings with the Peninsula.
I think the Crimean people should be allowed a say in their future (as has happened before). They will, I suspect, prefer neither to be ruled by Kyiv nor Moscow. If that's their wish, so be it.
Imposing Ukrainian rule on them based on some spurious legality from the Soviet era, while better than a Russian coup de main, is still not how we should be behaving towards the Crimean people.
Maybe Putin should have thought about that, before he invaded.
Sevastopol can be the home of the new Ukranian Navy. Russia can make do with Novorossiysk around the corner.
Russian state propaganda idiot Solovyov gets into a mess when he demands revenge for Ukraine sinking the warship Moskva even though the official lie is that it was an accident.
Seattle Times ($) - Refugees in all but name, Ukrainians in WA want to work but can’t
EVERETT — After a monthslong journey that took them from Ukraine to Poland to Mexico to Everett, Ivan Lopatskyi’s family of eight squeezed into a crowded house. There were 16 people in all.
They shared beds and laid mattresses on the floor — happy nonetheless to be away from bombings and in the home of Lopatskyi’s brother, and grateful to the U.S. for offering refuge.
But four months later, the 42-year-old Lopatskyi, who owned a plant nursery in the western Ukrainian city of Rivne, finds himself in a bind. He has yet to receive permission to work and will likely have to wait months more.
So he’s not sure how his family can continue to afford their Everett town house, which they moved into after a nonprofit provided several months’ rent.
Their dilemma is similar to that of many new Ukrainian arrivals — as of July, estimates show roughly 7,500 have come to Washington, a top American destination because of the large Ukrainian population already here — and stems from their status in the U.S.
Despite escaping destroyed cities and war atrocities, eliciting enormous American sympathy, recent Ukrainian arrivals are not considered official “refugees.” Instead, they are “humanitarian parolees,” granted visas for one or two years and relegated to a patchwork of support without automatic entitlement, like refugees receive, to work. . . .
Lawyers for a group of Ukrainians in Washington and across the country filed a federal lawsuit in August in Illinois, arguing that Ukrainians should be able to work immediately by virtue of a May congressional act making them eligible for the same benefits as refugees. . . .
Some Ukrainians could likely step into a job easily. Oleksandr Kucherenko is a mechanical engineer who supervised hundreds of people at a steel plant in the now Russian-occupied city of Mariupol. Long fascinated with planes, he said he had a promising interview with Boeing for a well-paid assembly mechanic job. . . .
But he later learned he needed to be a citizen, permanent resident, refugee or someone granted asylum for the job.
Employers, struggling to find workers during a labor shortage, are also frustrated.
“I couldn’t tell you how many voice messages and emails I have from different companies who are looking forward to hire Ukrainians,” said Oleg Pynda, executive director of the Ukrainian Community Center of Washington.
Pynda helped organize a job fair Aug. 25 and 26 in Renton for new arrivals from Ukraine and Afghanistan, with dozens of employers, including T-Mobile, Amazon, Starbucks and the Hyatt Regency, hoping to at least facilitate connections for when work permits come through. . . .
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”
Bit harsh on the Baltics, who have been pretty steadfast.
Entirely fair on the French, Germans and Italians however.
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
But how do you know? Are you Ukrainian? In the UK prosecutions for treason need approval from the DPP because there's very often public policy grounds for not bringing them.
Are you Ukrainian? Are you a lawyer?
Any personal information I choose to disclose will be done on my own time. In the meantime, I am confident the success of my predictions will speak for themselves. Though I note the repeated failed predictions of those with orcish sympathies does not prevent them from continuing to post unashamed.
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.
You don't have much confidence in your own case either. Why do you limit it to LOTO and newsreaders, when the argument started out as being about whether the PM was informed of her death in the NZ note just after midday?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think either Truss or Starmer have the self discipline or the acting chops to keep going as if the Queen were still alive after they’ve been told she wasn’t.
It's looking like Putin's immediate concern is securing Moscow, rather than establishing a line of defence in occupied Ukraine.
Andrea Gilli @aa_gilli In Moscow, squares are being closed off. Ok. However, I would urge some also to close their windows: you never know, birds, rain, wind, or wind currents which drain you from your 3rd floor apt and make you fall from the 6th.
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.
Come on - you can do better than that.
The position of the Crimea can't just be waved away in a sentence. It's far more complex than that and if you read your history of the mid 90s, the Ukraine weren't always fair and even in their dealings with the Peninsula.
I think the Crimean people should be allowed a say in their future (as has happened before). They will, I suspect, prefer neither to be ruled by Kyiv nor Moscow. If that's their wish, so be it.
Imposing Ukrainian rule on them based on some spurious legality from the Soviet era, while better than a Russian coup de main, is still not how we should be behaving towards the Crimean people.
Starting to recognise every little potential tinpot statelet as a potential sovereign entity is a very dangerous path down which to be embarking. If you're going to start meddling in the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which was previously guaranteed as absolute by the US, UK and Russia, then why not also the tinpot republics in the Donbas? And if you're proposing that we demand Ukraine allow itself to be carved into little pieces, then why not extend the same logic to Russia itself? Russia is a vast collection of regions and republics, many of which are very distant indeed from Moscow, feel exploited by Moscow, are majority non-Russian ethnically, or some combination of the three.
Almost the entire international community recognises Crimea as part of Ukraine. Therefore Crimea should return to Ukraine. End of.
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.
Just a gentle reminder that Zelensky is as Russian as they are.
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.
Although ironically the Crimea was part of Ukraine because the Soviets transferred it from Russia in 1954 for logistical and economic reasons.
It's looking like Putin's immediate concern is securing Moscow, rather than establishing a line of defence in occupied Ukraine.
Andrea Gilli @aa_gilli In Moscow, squares are being closed off. Ok. However, I would urge some also to close their windows: you never know, birds, rain, wind, or wind currents which drain you from your 3rd floor apt and make you fall from the 6th.
Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 @IAPonomarenko · 1h Izium… But we’ll probably be having even more incredible news from Donetsk Oblast — waiting on confirmation now.
It's looking like Putin's immediate concern is securing Moscow, rather than establishing a line of defence in occupied Ukraine.
Andrea Gilli @aa_gilli In Moscow, squares are being closed off. Ok. However, I would urge some also to close their windows: you never know, birds, rain, wind, or wind currents which drain you from your 3rd floor apt and make you fall from the 6th.
It is apparently a celebration they have every year. Preplanned and scheduled.
Yes, Moscow City Day, it seems. Although...
Although it does seem rather unusual to use heavy vehicles to form a roadblock, rather than a police car and some metal barriers. It’s almost as if they were expecting trouble…
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
But how do you know? Are you Ukrainian? In the UK prosecutions for treason need approval from the DPP because there's very often public policy grounds for not bringing them.
Are you Ukrainian? Are you a lawyer?
Any personal information I choose to disclose will be done on my own time. In the meantime, I am confident the success of my predictions will speak for themselves. Though I note the repeated failed predictions of those with orcish sympathies does not prevent them from continuing to post unashamed.
OK, so you are a robotic arsehole and an obvious troll. Fucking off would be one option.
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.
Just a gentle reminder that Zelensky is as Russian as they are.
Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot here? Does it matter?
It's looking like Putin's immediate concern is securing Moscow, rather than establishing a line of defence in occupied Ukraine.
Andrea Gilli @aa_gilli In Moscow, squares are being closed off. Ok. However, I would urge some also to close their windows: you never know, birds, rain, wind, or wind currents which drain you from your 3rd floor apt and make you fall from the 6th.
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 yout choice of charity.
you are not making sense even on your own terms. Why, in your view, did the news bods put on black ties?
I assume because they were fully aware the news was imminent. They didn't all change at the same time. 'She wont survive the day'. I've said what i think, if i am wrong you will have an apology and a charitable donation.
At about 2pm, on the day, a bunch of workmen and a chap in a suit were fiddling with the flag on the top of the Bank of England. They didn’t replace the flag (though the suited chap had a shiny new one). This was visible from my office, close by. They were obviously looking at the issue of putting the flag to half mast.
I presume that, just as the civil service was telling people to get their copies of London Bridge out, the newscasters were being precautionary.
It's looking like Putin's immediate concern is securing Moscow, rather than establishing a line of defence in occupied Ukraine.
Andrea Gilli @aa_gilli In Moscow, squares are being closed off. Ok. However, I would urge some also to close their windows: you never know, birds, rain, wind, or wind currents which drain you from your 3rd floor apt and make you fall from the 6th.
It is apparently a celebration they have every year. Preplanned and scheduled.
Ha! Oops.
Yes. Moscow City Day. Thanks for the correction.
Putin wont fall to a popular uprising at the moment. Maybe if he does general mobilization and they all think they are going to die. At moment it is more likely that some segment of the elite/military will decide enough is enough and start sending troops to secure the TV stations and so on.
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
But how do you know? Are you Ukrainian? In the UK prosecutions for treason need approval from the DPP because there's very often public policy grounds for not bringing them.
Are you Ukrainian? Are you a lawyer?
Any personal information I choose to disclose will be done on my own time. In the meantime, I am confident the success of my predictions will speak for themselves. Though I note the repeated failed predictions of those with orcish sympathies does not prevent them from continuing to post unashamed.
Ishmael is not someone with “orcish sympathies”. He’s just quite correctly coming at it from the position of being a lawyer where the simple and probably “morally correct” position isn’t always the appropriate legal or overriding political position.
It's looking like Putin's immediate concern is securing Moscow, rather than establishing a line of defence in occupied Ukraine.
Andrea Gilli @aa_gilli In Moscow, squares are being closed off. Ok. However, I would urge some also to close their windows: you never know, birds, rain, wind, or wind currents which drain you from your 3rd floor apt and make you fall from the 6th.
It is apparently a celebration they have every year. Preplanned and scheduled.
Ha! Oops.
Yes. Moscow City Day. Thanks for the correction.
Putin wont fall to a popular uprising at the moment. Maybe if he does general mobilization and they all think they are going to die. At moment it is more likely that some segment of the elite/military will decide enough is enough and start sending troops to secure the TV stations and so on.
Absolutely I'm counting the 90s vote, that was democratic.
The Crimean people can't "have a choice" until the war is over and the Russians are gone and democracy is restored.
Its up to Kyiv how they manage their own territory and the Russians can f*** off out of Sebastopol. If they wanted to stay in a foreign country, they should have been allies and not enemies. Lose a war, lose your base.
The Ukrainians were so impressed by this democracy they marched into Crimea in 1995, deposed the elected President and imposed rule by edict.
Let's not play games - Kyiv's record in the Crimea is patchy at best and you can well understand why the Crimean people might not be as ecstatic at the prospect of a return to Ukrainian rule. I'm arguing for self-determination for the Crimean people and having their voice heard and respected which neither the Ukraine nor Russia have done in recent times.
Unfortunately your swearing cuts little or no ice in international law. Fortunately, Putin is as stupid as we all think. Had he not unilaterally abrogated the lease for the Sebastopol naval base in 2014, I would simply argue under law Ukraine would be in a difficult position trying to force them out. That's not to say they wouldn't be morally right.
As a parallel, I'd argue the only reason Russia propped up Bashir Assad was or were the bases at Tartus and Latakia. Had the rebels won, it's probable the Russians would have lost their main base of operations in the Eastern Mediterranean.
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
But how do you know? Are you Ukrainian? In the UK prosecutions for treason need approval from the DPP because there's very often public policy grounds for not bringing them.
Are you Ukrainian? Are you a lawyer?
Any personal information I choose to disclose will be done on my own time. In the meantime, I am confident the success of my predictions will speak for themselves. Though I note the repeated failed predictions of those with orcish sympathies does not prevent them from continuing to post unashamed.
Ishmael is not someone with “orcish sympathies”. He’s just quite correctly coming at it from the position of being a lawyer where the simple and probably “morally correct” position isn’t always the appropriate legal or overriding political position.
In no way is he a friend of Bad Vlad and co.
Apologies if you were not targeting him.
So far, Ukraine has arrested and in some cases, prosecuted people for collaborating with the Russians. People in government posts, mainly, i believe.
It seems improbable that this won’t continue. It also seems improbable that anyone will object to the prosecution of government officials who turned against their government.
Absolutely I'm counting the 90s vote, that was democratic.
The Crimean people can't "have a choice" until the war is over and the Russians are gone and democracy is restored.
Its up to Kyiv how they manage their own territory and the Russians can f*** off out of Sebastopol. If they wanted to stay in a foreign country, they should have been allies and not enemies. Lose a war, lose your base.
The Ukrainians were so impressed by this democracy they marched into Crimea in 1995, deposed the elected President and imposed rule by edict.
Let's not play games - Kyiv's record in the Crimea is patchy at best and you can well understand why the Crimean people might not be as ecstatic at the prospect of a return to Ukrainian rule. I'm arguing for self-determination for the Crimean people and having their voice heard and respected which neither the Ukraine nor Russia have done in recent times.
Unfortunately your swearing cuts little or no ice in international law. Fortunately, Putin is as stupid as we all think. Had he not unilaterally abrogated the lease for the Sebastopol naval base in 2014, I would simply argue under law Ukraine would be in a difficult position trying to force them out. That's not to say they wouldn't be morally right.
As a parallel, I'd argue the only reason Russia propped up Bashir Assad was or were the bases at Tartus and Latakia. Had the rebels won, it's probable the Russians would have lost their main base of operations in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Crimean people were ethnically cleansed by Russian in the 1930s. Self-determination cannot be morally used to carve off a chunk of a neighbour when the majority electorate has been created by ethnic cleansing within a human lifetime.
Starting to recognise every little potential tinpot statelet as a potential sovereign entity is a very dangerous path down which to be embarking. If you're going to start meddling in the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which was previously guaranteed as absolute by the US, UK and Russia, then why not also the tinpot republics in the Donbas? And if you're proposing that we demand Ukraine allow itself to be carved into little pieces, then why not extend the same logic to Russia itself? Russia is a vast collection of regions and republics, many of which are very distant indeed from Moscow, feel exploited by Moscow, are majority non-Russian ethnically, or some combination of the three.
Almost the entire international community recognises Crimea as part of Ukraine. Therefore Crimea should return to Ukraine. End of.
Sorry, I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing three points, first, you are suggesting the Ukrainian minority (15%) gets to rule over the Russian majority (65%) in Crimea and while that might be viable for a while, history suggests such an approach doesn't end well.
Second, the Ukraine's own behaviour toward even limited autonomy for the Crimeans in the 1990s was poor and on that basis I can understand the Crimean people being concerned about the prospect of returning to Ukrainian rule
Third, why not just ask the Crimean people what they want? Since when did self-determination fall out of favour?
It's looking like Putin's immediate concern is securing Moscow, rather than establishing a line of defence in occupied Ukraine.
Andrea Gilli @aa_gilli In Moscow, squares are being closed off. Ok. However, I would urge some also to close their windows: you never know, birds, rain, wind, or wind currents which drain you from your 3rd floor apt and make you fall from the 6th.
It is apparently a celebration they have every year. Preplanned and scheduled.
Ha! Oops.
Yes. Moscow City Day. Thanks for the correction.
Putin wont fall to a popular uprising at the moment. Maybe if he does general mobilization and they all think they are going to die. At moment it is more likely that some segment of the elite/military will decide enough is enough and start sending troops to secure the TV stations and so on.
Start watching the flag pole on the Russian Central Bank building. And upper story windows of the Kremlin.
It would be fucking funny if Putin actually accidentally fell out of a window today.
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
But how do you know? Are you Ukrainian? In the UK prosecutions for treason need approval from the DPP because there's very often public policy grounds for not bringing them.
Are you Ukrainian? Are you a lawyer?
Any personal information I choose to disclose will be done on my own time. In the meantime, I am confident the success of my predictions will speak for themselves. Though I note the repeated failed predictions of those with orcish sympathies does not prevent them from continuing to post unashamed.
Ishmael is not someone with “orcish sympathies”. He’s just quite correctly coming at it from the position of being a lawyer where the simple and probably “morally correct” position isn’t always the appropriate legal or overriding political position.
In no way is he a friend of Bad Vlad and co.
Apologies if you were not targeting him.
So far, Ukraine has arrested and in some cases, prosecuted people for collaborating with the Russians. People in government posts, mainly, i believe.
It seems improbable that this won’t continue. It also seems improbable that anyone will object to the prosecution of government officials who turned against their government.
Yeah, it's just the staggering pointlessness of this poster's debut.
I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that Ukraine has no natural right to the Donbas or the Crimea because of “ethnic Russians”.
Most modern countries are multi-ethnic patchworks to a lesser or greater extent, but that doesn’t make them illegitimate or give neighbouring states especial rights over them.
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 yout choice of charity.
you are not making sense even on your own terms. Why, in your view, did the news bods put on black ties?
I assume because they were fully aware the news was imminent. They didn't all change at the same time. 'She wont survive the day'. I've said what i think, if i am wrong you will have an apology and a charitable donation.
At about 2pm, on the day, a bunch of workmen and a chap in a suit were fiddling with the flag on the top of the Bank of England. They didn’t replace the flag (though the suited chap had a shiny new one). This was visible from my office, close by. They were obviously looking at the issue of putting the flag to half mast.
I presume that, just as the civil service was telling people to get their copies of London Bridge out, the newscasters were being precautionary.
Theres also the fact that if the media were aware of her death hours before 6.30, there's no way that wouldn't have leaked on an overseas network's social media or channel, radio station etc
Starting to recognise every little potential tinpot statelet as a potential sovereign entity is a very dangerous path down which to be embarking. If you're going to start meddling in the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which was previously guaranteed as absolute by the US, UK and Russia, then why not also the tinpot republics in the Donbas? And if you're proposing that we demand Ukraine allow itself to be carved into little pieces, then why not extend the same logic to Russia itself? Russia is a vast collection of regions and republics, many of which are very distant indeed from Moscow, feel exploited by Moscow, are majority non-Russian ethnically, or some combination of the three.
Almost the entire international community recognises Crimea as part of Ukraine. Therefore Crimea should return to Ukraine. End of.
Sorry, I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing three points, first, you are suggesting the Ukrainian minority (15%) gets to rule over the Russian majority (65%) in Crimea and while that might be viable for a while, history suggests such an approach doesn't end well.
Second, the Ukraine's own behaviour toward even limited autonomy for the Crimeans in the 1990s was poor and on that basis I can understand the Crimean people being concerned about the prospect of returning to Ukrainian rule
Third, why not just ask the Crimean people what they want? Since when did self-determination fall out of favour?
“ Third, why not just ask the Crimean people what they want? Since when did self-determination fall out of favour?”
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 yout choice of charity.
you are not making sense even on your own terms. Why, in your view, did the news bods put on black ties?
I assume because they were fully aware the news was imminent. They didn't all change at the same time. 'She wont survive the day'. I've said what i think, if i am wrong you will have an apology and a charitable donation.
At about 2pm, on the day, a bunch of workmen and a chap in a suit were fiddling with the flag on the top of the Bank of England. They didn’t replace the flag (though the suited chap had a shiny new one). This was visible from my office, close by. They were obviously looking at the issue of putting the flag to half mast.
I presume that, just as the civil service was telling people to get their copies of London Bridge out, the newscasters were being precautionary.
Theres also the fact that if the media were aware of her death hours before 6.30, there's no way that wouldn't have leaked on an overseas network's social media or channel, radio station etc
Yes. This.
There were half a dozen people on the roof of the BoE - multiply that by the various government depts. then multiply by all the other preparations…… No way that many people keep a secret like that…
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.
I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that Ukraine has no natural right to the Donbas or the Crimea because of “ethnic Russians”.
Most modern countries are multi-ethnic patchworks to a lesser or greater extent, but that doesn’t make them illegitimate or give neighbouring states especial rights over them.
Especially when those patchworks were created by imperialism and ethnic cleansing just decades ago.
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.
Ot doesn't show much faith in NATO allies either!
I think the Poles have good historical reasons to be wary of alliances and treaties.
I’m happy to believe Truss (I found out at 4:30pm UK) and Ardern (I received a message from the Cabinet Secretary at 5:50pm UK).
As to what happened earlier, I believe the Palace probably communicated that she was gravely unwell first thing, ie per the Mail and Telegraph, followed by the message around lunchtime - received by Truss and Starmer - that she was likely to pass away later that day.
I believe someone posted on here that they had been informed that London Bridge was expected in the evening.
Calm down all. Leon is just a sneaking regarder of the gaybashing Polish government, which declared a series of LGBT-free zones until threats to their begging bowl from Brussels. They certainly showed who Poland is truly dependent on when they started stepping back into line to grab structural funds.
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.
Just a gentle reminder that Zelensky is as Russian as they are.
Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot here? Does it matter?
No, I'm just pointing out the illogicality of @stodge claiming all Russian speakers must be pro-Putin and anti-Zelensky.
To a great extent, of course, it doesn't matter. I'm one of many Welsh people in southern Staffordshire. Should the tiny handful of mostly English people behind the 'Yes Cymru' movement get their way, should south Staffs have the option to go with them? Or South Pembrokeshire, which is entirely English and has been for centuries, become an exclave the other way?
For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion
That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion
Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw
Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.
You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
Dividing the world into blocs/spheres of influence seems more characteristic of an imperial mindset.
In that post I meant the old BRITISH imperial mindset whereby all the world is our "patch".
Ludicrous parochialism - it's the universe that is the British Empire's patch
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
I've tried a few times to express what I want with just a tilt of the head. It's never worked. Probably because it requires having slaves and my cupboard is bare on that score.
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
I've tried a few times to express what I want with just a tilt of the head. It's never worked. Probably because it requires having slaves and my cupboard is bare on that score.
No, you can do it in pubs, restaurants, shops. Try it. The tilt of the head
Clearly Crimea needs its own “Good Friday agreement” where it’s held by one state with transfer dependent on the will of the population. Maybe as a DMZ though.
Starting to recognise every little potential tinpot statelet as a potential sovereign entity is a very dangerous path down which to be embarking. If you're going to start meddling in the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which was previously guaranteed as absolute by the US, UK and Russia, then why not also the tinpot republics in the Donbas? And if you're proposing that we demand Ukraine allow itself to be carved into little pieces, then why not extend the same logic to Russia itself? Russia is a vast collection of regions and republics, many of which are very distant indeed from Moscow, feel exploited by Moscow, are majority non-Russian ethnically, or some combination of the three.
Almost the entire international community recognises Crimea as part of Ukraine. Therefore Crimea should return to Ukraine. End of.
Sorry, I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing three points, first, you are suggesting the Ukrainian minority (15%) gets to rule over the Russian majority (65%) in Crimea and while that might be viable for a while, history suggests such an approach doesn't end well.
Second, the Ukraine's own behaviour toward even limited autonomy for the Crimeans in the 1990s was poor and on that basis I can understand the Crimean people being concerned about the prospect of returning to Ukrainian rule
Third, why not just ask the Crimean people what they want? Since when did self-determination fall out of favour?
“ Third, why not just ask the Crimean people what they want? Since when did self-determination fall out of favour?”
2016?
The Crimean People were asked what they wanted at the time Ukraine became independent from Russia / USSR and they voted 54%:46% in favour of joining Ukraine. As did all the other oblasts or whatever else they happened to be called (Crimea was an Autonomous Republic). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
Since the current 'Ukrainian' and 'Russian' division of the population you quote is a result of a decade of war and a variety of ethnic cleansing the suggestion of a vote on that basis is as ludicrous as the fake one held in 2014, I'd suggest.
A fair referendum is currently impossible due to years of Stalin tactics from Putin.
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.
Just a gentle reminder that Zelensky is as Russian as they are.
Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot here? Does it matter?
No, I'm just pointing out the illogicality of @stodge claiming all Russian speakers must be pro-Putin and anti-Zelensky.
To a great extent, of course, it doesn't matter. I'm one of many Welsh people in southern Staffordshire. Should the tiny handful of mostly English people behind the 'Yes Cymru' movement get their way, should south Staffs have the option to go with them? Or South Pembrokeshire, which is entirely English and has been for centuries, become an exclave the other way?
Because that's the logic of the argument.
I'm sorry that's a complete misrepresentation of my comments and my position.
What I actually said was 65% of the population of Crimea are ethnic Russians - that doesn't make them pro-Putin, doesn't make them pro-Zelenskyy either.
If you look at the history of the Crimea, neither arbitrary rule from Moscow nor arbitrary rule from Kyiv has done them any favours.
I maintain, despite @WillG's ludicrous obfuscations, the current Crimean population should be asked what they want in a free and fair referendum or at the very least we need Zelenskyy to recognise the Crimea needs to be allowed significant local autonomy to govern its own affairs and we can't have a repetition of what happened in 1995.
Calm down all. Leon is just a sneaking regarder of the gaybashing Polish government, which declared a series of LGBT-free zones until threats to their begging bowl from Brussels. They certainly showed who Poland is truly dependent on when they started stepping back into line to grab structural funds.
Just because the current Polish government is stalwart in its defence of Ukraine doesn't make it morally pure. It is one of the dodgier regimes on the continent in terms of respect for the rule of law etc.
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?
Again, a question for another day.
I dont think Crimea will be Ukrainian again. It's the most likely to have some genuine Russian support and more strategic value than the Donbas it seems, so I could envisage Ruddis giving up on the latter and allies not supplying Ukraine to take Crimea.
But we're still a long way from even the Donbas being won back, so I dont see what value there us in speculating if the Ukrainians might not be sensible there. Perhaps they'll be vengeful perhaps they'll be saints who knows.
Starting to recognise every little potential tinpot statelet as a potential sovereign entity is a very dangerous path down which to be embarking. If you're going to start meddling in the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which was previously guaranteed as absolute by the US, UK and Russia, then why not also the tinpot republics in the Donbas? And if you're proposing that we demand Ukraine allow itself to be carved into little pieces, then why not extend the same logic to Russia itself? Russia is a vast collection of regions and republics, many of which are very distant indeed from Moscow, feel exploited by Moscow, are majority non-Russian ethnically, or some combination of the three.
Almost the entire international community recognises Crimea as part of Ukraine. Therefore Crimea should return to Ukraine. End of.
Sorry, I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing three points, first, you are suggesting the Ukrainian minority (15%) gets to rule over the Russian majority (65%) in Crimea and while that might be viable for a while, history suggests such an approach doesn't end well.
Second, the Ukraine's own behaviour toward even limited autonomy for the Crimeans in the 1990s was poor and on that basis I can understand the Crimean people being concerned about the prospect of returning to Ukrainian rule
Third, why not just ask the Crimean people what they want? Since when did self-determination fall out of favour?
“ Third, why not just ask the Crimean people what they want? Since when did self-determination fall out of favour?”
2016?
The Crimean People were asked what they wanted at the time Ukraine became independent from Russia / USSR and they voted 54%:46% in favour of joining Ukraine. As did all the other oblasts or whatever else they happened to be called (Crimea was an Autonomous Republic). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
Since the current 'Ukrainian' and 'Russian' division of the population you quote is a result of a decade of war and a variety of ethnic cleansing the suggestion of a vote on that basis is as ludicrous as the fake one held in 2014, I'd suggest.
A fair referendum is currently impossible due to years of Stalin tactics from Putin.
I was being a dick about Brexit and how the will of the people might not always be in favour with everyone. Not in an overly serious mood. Sorry.
The position of the Crimea can't just be waved away in a sentence. It's far more complex than that and if you read your history of the mid 90s, the Ukraine weren't always fair and even in their dealings with the Peninsula.
I have the impression that you have been reading this from the same kind of sources who talk about eight years of Ukrainian bombardment of the peaceful citizens of Donbas.
Starting to recognise every little potential tinpot statelet as a potential sovereign entity is a very dangerous path down which to be embarking. If you're going to start meddling in the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which was previously guaranteed as absolute by the US, UK and Russia, then why not also the tinpot republics in the Donbas? And if you're proposing that we demand Ukraine allow itself to be carved into little pieces, then why not extend the same logic to Russia itself? Russia is a vast collection of regions and republics, many of which are very distant indeed from Moscow, feel exploited by Moscow, are majority non-Russian ethnically, or some combination of the three.
Almost the entire international community recognises Crimea as part of Ukraine. Therefore Crimea should return to Ukraine. End of.
Sorry, I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing three points, first, you are suggesting the Ukrainian minority (15%) gets to rule over the Russian majority (65%) in Crimea and while that might be viable for a while, history suggests such an approach doesn't end well.
Second, the Ukraine's own behaviour toward even limited autonomy for the Crimeans in the 1990s was poor and on that basis I can understand the Crimean people being concerned about the prospect of returning to Ukrainian rule
Third, why not just ask the Crimean people what they want? Since when did self-determination fall out of favour?
At present it certainly looks like the Democrats will hold the Senate and even the House is neck and neck
Average generic poll is about 1% lead for Dems, nowhere near enough to hold the house with the redistricting and boundaries favouring republicans. Its moving to Dems but its got a way to go. Senate a toss up
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
But how do you know? Are you Ukrainian? In the UK prosecutions for treason need approval from the DPP because there's very often public policy grounds for not bringing them.
Are you Ukrainian? Are you a lawyer?
Any personal information I choose to disclose will be done on my own time. In the meantime, I am confident the success of my predictions will speak for themselves. Though I note the repeated failed predictions of those with orcish sympathies does not prevent them from continuing to post unashamed.
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 yout choice of charity.
you are not making sense even on your own terms. Why, in your view, did the news bods put on black ties?
I assume because they were fully aware the news was imminent. They didn't all change at the same time. 'She wont survive the day'. I've said what i think, if i am wrong you will have an apology and a charitable donation.
At about 2pm, on the day, a bunch of workmen and a chap in a suit were fiddling with the flag on the top of the Bank of England. They didn’t replace the flag (though the suited chap had a shiny new one). This was visible from my office, close by. They were obviously looking at the issue of putting the flag to half mast.
I presume that, just as the civil service was telling people to get their copies of London Bridge out, the newscasters were being precautionary.
Theres also the fact that if the media were aware of her death hours before 6.30, there's no way that wouldn't have leaked on an overseas network's social media or channel, radio station etc
Someone posted on another forum, that the time of death was 14:37, apparently directly from someone who would know. That seems plausible, although obviously there’s no reason to believe some random on the internet. It does fit with other events of the day.
This was just as the Royal plane (containing William, Andrew and Edward) took off from Northolt, an hour later than it was scheduled to depart. Perhaps they were waiting for Harry, but couldn’t wait any longer?
I think that the form of words used in the 12:30 statement, meant something quite specific to those who get briefed on these things, hence the operation that clearly went quickly into effect, anticipating the announcement later in the day. I’m pretty sure that the media didn’t know for sure that the bridge was down, until 18:32 - it would have leaked somewhere, if a briefing had been given earlier confirming the news.
For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion
That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion
Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw
Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.
You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
You think everything is our business. You have an imperial mindset.
Dividing the world into blocs/spheres of influence seems more characteristic of an imperial mindset.
In that post I meant the old BRITISH imperial mindset whereby all the world is our "patch".
Ludicrous parochialism - it's the universe that is the British Empire's patch
Ah, you've played Sunless Skies then.
I haven't, but there's no end of fictional imagining of a future Great Britain. I'm pretty happy with what we have now really. Forget all the Blair type crap, and the Olympics 2020 stuff, but there are some good things about us. Sadly some very bad things too.
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.
Just a gentle reminder that Zelensky is as Russian as they are.
Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot here? Does it matter?
No, I'm just pointing out the illogicality of @stodge claiming all Russian speakers must be pro-Putin and anti-Zelensky.
To a great extent, of course, it doesn't matter. I'm one of many Welsh people in southern Staffordshire. Should the tiny handful of mostly English people behind the 'Yes Cymru' movement get their way, should south Staffs have the option to go with them? Or South Pembrokeshire, which is entirely English and has been for centuries, become an exclave the other way?
Because that's the logic of the argument.
I'm sorry that's a complete misrepresentation of my comments and my position.
What I actually said was 65% of the population of Crimea are ethnic Russians - that doesn't make them pro-Putin, doesn't make them pro-Zelenskyy either.
If you look at the history of the Crimea, neither arbitrary rule from Moscow nor arbitrary rule from Kyiv has done them any favours.
I maintain, despite @WillG's ludicrous obfuscations, the current Crimean population should be asked what they want in a free and fair referendum or at the very least we need Zelenskyy to recognise the Crimea needs to be allowed significant local autonomy to govern its own affairs and we can't have a repetition of what happened in 1995.
Crimea had enormous autonomy within Ukraine. Far more than it does within Russia. If not analogous to Scotland it certainly matched Wales.
And 2014 was pretty much an exact repetition of 1995, just the other way around.
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
But how do you know? Are you Ukrainian? In the UK prosecutions for treason need approval from the DPP because there's very often public policy grounds for not bringing them.
Are you Ukrainian? Are you a lawyer?
Any personal information I choose to disclose will be done on my own time. In the meantime, I am confident the success of my predictions will speak for themselves. Though I note the repeated failed predictions of those with orcish sympathies does not prevent them from continuing to post unashamed.
OK, so you are a robotic arsehole and an obvious troll. Fucking off would be one option.
That’s really out of order. Tsk
Pb welcomes all voices. Until they break fundamental rules. That is key to the site’s success
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.
There is absolutely no way you can stop it. Too many have been raped, tortured, killed
And we have yet to see how many mass graves the Russians have dug in the occupied zones. It could get a lot worse
There is zero doubt the Ukrainians have or will commit war crimes somewhere, I am sure. It'll be extent and how its responses to that might worry allies, but them again we have some pretty awful allies. So far they seem very disciplined.
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?
Again, a question for another day.
I dont think Crimea will be Ukrainian again. It's the most likely to have some genuine Russian support and more strategic value than the Donbas it seems, so I could envisage Ruddis giving up on the latter and allies not supplying Ukraine to take Crimea.
But we're still a long way from even the Donbas being won back, so I dont see what value there us in speculating if the Ukrainians might not be sensible there. Perhaps they'll be vengeful perhaps they'll be saints who knows.
We are not that far from the Donbas being returned, Ukraine has invested Lysychans'k and Donets'k. They have so far shown no signs of exacting vengeance, reasonable though that might be
I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that Ukraine has no natural right to the Donbas or the Crimea because of “ethnic Russians”.
Most modern countries are multi-ethnic patchworks to a lesser or greater extent, but that doesn’t make them illegitimate or give neighbouring states especial rights over them.
Especially when those patchworks were created by imperialism and ethnic cleansing just decades ago.
There are two separate issues - what do a majority of people in Crimea want, and should they be allowed to have whatever it is? We don't know the answer to the first, and only an internationally-supervised referendum will give us a satisfactory answer. But the answer to the second should be yes, just as Scotland has a right to go its own way if it wants to. Insisting that they should be governed by a government they dislike (if they do), merely because Russia thought it administrative convenient to attach it to Ukraine in the 1950s, would be just as wrong as Russia trying to conquer Kyiv, where the popyulation quite obviously don't want them.
Support for Ukraine against czarist Russian aggression was right. Support for imposing Ukrainian nationalism on areas where it may not be wanted - no.
My guess is that Zelensky knows that, and would win a referendum in Crimea if it was held, if only because people have had enough of war. But they shoyuld get a say.
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.
There is no alienation that will happen. Just as many of the rioters on January 6th have been put in prison, Ukraine will do the same for treason in her territory, in accordance with the law.
But how do you know? Are you Ukrainian? In the UK prosecutions for treason need approval from the DPP because there's very often public policy grounds for not bringing them.
Are you Ukrainian? Are you a lawyer?
Any personal information I choose to disclose will be done on my own time. In the meantime, I am confident the success of my predictions will speak for themselves. Though I note the repeated failed predictions of those with orcish sympathies does not prevent them from continuing to post unashamed.
OK, so you are a robotic arsehole and an obvious troll. Fucking off would be one option.
That’s really out of order. Tsk
Pb welcomes all voices. Until they break fundamental rules. That is key to the site’s success
I know but piling in with this shit, first post? If he really is Ukrainian at least I won't feel quite so bad if it all goes pear shaped in Donetsk.
While I am here, this King stuff is starting to feel like Ruritanian shit. Good lols for 3 days, now can we have our queen back pls.
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
I've tried a few times to express what I want with just a tilt of the head. It's never worked. Probably because it requires having slaves and my cupboard is bare on that score.
No, you can do it in pubs, restaurants, shops. Try it. The tilt of the head
Yes I can do a tilt of the head. That's not a problem.
I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that Ukraine has no natural right to the Donbas or the Crimea because of “ethnic Russians”.
Most modern countries are multi-ethnic patchworks to a lesser or greater extent, but that doesn’t make them illegitimate or give neighbouring states especial rights over them.
Especially when those patchworks were created by imperialism and ethnic cleansing just decades ago.
There are two separate issues - what do a majority of people in Crimea want, and should they be allowed to have whatever it is? We don't know the answer to the first, and only an internationally-supervised referendum will give us a satisfactory answer. But the answer to the second should be yes, just as Scotland has a right to go its own way if it wants to. Insisting that they should be governed by a government they dislike (if they do), merely because Russia thought it administrative convenient to attach it to Ukraine in the 1950s, would be just as wrong as Russia trying to conquer Kyiv, where the popyulation quite obviously don't want them.
Support for Ukraine against czarist Russian aggression was right. Support for imposing Ukrainian nationalism on areas where it may not be wanted - no.
My guess is that Zelensky knows that, and would win a referendum in Crimea if it was held, if only because people have had enough of war. But they shoyuld get a say.
But there's a third issue you conveniently forget - despite it being mentioned in the post you linked. Ethnic cleansing. There are credible claims that tens of thousands of Crimean Tartars and Ukrainians have left Crimea since 2014. One of my favourite pro-Ukrainian YouTubers was born in Crimea. Is it fair - or right - for a referendum to take place after this illegal invasion?
And if it is right now, what is to stop other countries invading a territory and deporting (or killing...) everyone who won't vote for it?
Comments
Andrea Gilli
@aa_gilli
In Moscow, squares are being closed off. Ok. However, I would urge some also to close their windows: you never know, birds, rain, wind, or wind currents which drain you from your 3rd floor apt and make you fall from the 6th.
https://mobile.twitter.com/aa_gilli/status/1568665587190218753
Top Tolling.
Are you Ukrainian? Are you a lawyer?
The position of the Crimea can't just be waved away in a sentence. It's far more complex than that and if you read your history of the mid 90s, the Ukraine weren't always fair and even in their dealings with the Peninsula.
I think the Crimean people should be allowed a say in their future (as has happened before). They will, I suspect, prefer neither to be ruled by Kyiv nor Moscow. If that's their wish, so be it.
Imposing Ukrainian rule on them based on some spurious legality from the Soviet era, while better than a Russian coup de main, is still not how we should be behaving towards the Crimean people.
I've said what i think, if i am wrong you will have an apology and a charitable donation.
Charles is no Elizabeth.
But to be fair to him, he is grieving and ought to be retired himself.
ETA and yes, you illustrate very well the idiocy of drooling appeals to Occam's bloody razor.
Say I set up a stall in Oxford street under a banner saying FREE £50 NOTES TO EVERYBODY CALLED ZEBEDEE. Are you saying Hur hur hur, Occam says that all these guys are saying they are called Zebedee, because they are called Zebedee?
Sevastopol can be the home of the new Ukranian Navy. Russia can make do with Novorossiysk around the corner.
It is falling apart.
EVERETT — After a monthslong journey that took them from Ukraine to Poland to Mexico to Everett, Ivan Lopatskyi’s family of eight squeezed into a crowded house. There were 16 people in all.
They shared beds and laid mattresses on the floor — happy nonetheless to be away from bombings and in the home of Lopatskyi’s brother, and grateful to the U.S. for offering refuge.
But four months later, the 42-year-old Lopatskyi, who owned a plant nursery in the western Ukrainian city of Rivne, finds himself in a bind. He has yet to receive permission to work and will likely have to wait months more.
So he’s not sure how his family can continue to afford their Everett town house, which they moved into after a nonprofit provided several months’ rent.
Their dilemma is similar to that of many new Ukrainian arrivals — as of July, estimates show roughly 7,500 have come to Washington, a top American destination because of the large Ukrainian population already here — and stems from their status in the U.S.
Despite escaping destroyed cities and war atrocities, eliciting enormous American sympathy, recent Ukrainian arrivals are not considered official “refugees.” Instead, they are “humanitarian parolees,” granted visas for one or two years and relegated to a patchwork of support without automatic entitlement, like refugees receive, to work. . . .
Lawyers for a group of Ukrainians in Washington and across the country filed a federal lawsuit in August in Illinois, arguing that Ukrainians should be able to work immediately by virtue of a May congressional act making them eligible for the same benefits as refugees. . . .
Some Ukrainians could likely step into a job easily. Oleksandr Kucherenko is a mechanical engineer who supervised hundreds of people at a steel plant in the now Russian-occupied city of Mariupol. Long fascinated with planes, he said he had a promising interview with Boeing for a well-paid assembly mechanic job. . . .
But he later learned he needed to be a citizen, permanent resident, refugee or someone granted asylum for the job.
Employers, struggling to find workers during a labor shortage, are also frustrated.
“I couldn’t tell you how many voice messages and emails I have from different companies who are looking forward to hire Ukrainians,” said Oleg Pynda, executive director of the Ukrainian Community Center of Washington.
Pynda helped organize a job fair Aug. 25 and 26 in Renton for new arrivals from Ukraine and Afghanistan, with dozens of employers, including T-Mobile, Amazon, Starbucks and the Hyatt Regency, hoping to at least facilitate connections for when work permits come through. . . .
Entirely fair on the French, Germans and Italians however.
Almost the entire international community recognises Crimea as part of Ukraine. Therefore Crimea should return to Ukraine. End of.
Yes. Moscow City Day. Thanks for the correction.
Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦
@IAPonomarenko
·
1h
Izium…
But we’ll probably be having even more incredible news from Donetsk Oblast — waiting on confirmation now.
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1568650799793979393
In response to the UK changing its National Anthem to God Save the King, the Russian Federation have changed their own to It's Raining Men.
I presume that, just as the civil service was telling people to get their copies of London Bridge out, the newscasters were being precautionary.
In no way is he a friend of Bad Vlad and co.
Apologies if you were not targeting him.
I presume you mean the 1994 vote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Crimean_referendum
The Ukrainians were so impressed by this democracy they marched into Crimea in 1995, deposed the elected President and imposed rule by edict.
Let's not play games - Kyiv's record in the Crimea is patchy at best and you can well understand why the Crimean people might not be as ecstatic at the prospect of a return to Ukrainian rule. I'm arguing for self-determination for the Crimean people and having their voice heard and respected which neither the Ukraine nor Russia have done in recent times.
Unfortunately your swearing cuts little or no ice in international law. Fortunately, Putin is as stupid as we all think. Had he not unilaterally abrogated the lease for the Sebastopol naval base in 2014, I would simply argue under law Ukraine would be in a difficult position trying to force them out. That's not to say they wouldn't be morally right.
As a parallel, I'd argue the only reason Russia propped up Bashir Assad was or were the bases at Tartus and Latakia. Had the rebels won, it's probable the Russians would have lost their main base of operations in the Eastern Mediterranean.
It seems improbable that this won’t continue. It also seems improbable that anyone will object to the prosecution of government officials who turned against their government.
I'm arguing three points, first, you are suggesting the Ukrainian minority (15%) gets to rule over the Russian majority (65%) in Crimea and while that might be viable for a while, history suggests such an approach doesn't end well.
Second, the Ukraine's own behaviour toward even limited autonomy for the Crimeans in the 1990s was poor and on that basis I can understand the Crimean people being concerned about the prospect of returning to Ukrainian rule
Third, why not just ask the Crimean people what they want? Since when did self-determination fall out of favour?
It would be fucking funny if Putin actually accidentally fell out of a window today.
Most modern countries are multi-ethnic patchworks to a lesser or greater extent, but that doesn’t make them illegitimate or give neighbouring states especial rights over them.
2016?
There were half a dozen people on the roof of the BoE - multiply that by the various government depts. then multiply by all the other preparations…… No way that many people keep a secret like that…
As to what happened earlier, I believe the Palace probably communicated that she was gravely unwell first thing, ie per the Mail and Telegraph, followed by the message around lunchtime - received by Truss and Starmer - that she was likely to pass away later that day.
I believe someone posted on here that they had been informed that London Bridge was expected in the evening.
To a great extent, of course, it doesn't matter. I'm one of many Welsh people in southern Staffordshire. Should the tiny handful of mostly English people behind the 'Yes Cymru' movement get their way, should south Staffs have the option to go with them? Or South Pembrokeshire, which is entirely English and has been for centuries, become an exclave the other way?
Because that's the logic of the argument.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1568646389399183360?t=jnHrSWb8_1-XxyyJV3BUXQ&s=19
It’s worked seamlessly in Northern Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
Since the current 'Ukrainian' and 'Russian' division of the population you quote is a result of a decade of war and a variety of ethnic cleansing the suggestion of a vote on that basis is as ludicrous as the fake one held in 2014, I'd suggest.
A fair referendum is currently impossible due to years of Stalin tactics from Putin.
What I actually said was 65% of the population of Crimea are ethnic Russians - that doesn't make them pro-Putin, doesn't make them pro-Zelenskyy either.
If you look at the history of the Crimea, neither arbitrary rule from Moscow nor arbitrary rule from Kyiv has done them any favours.
I maintain, despite @WillG's ludicrous obfuscations, the current Crimean population should be asked what they want in a free and fair referendum or at the very least we need Zelenskyy to recognise the Crimea needs to be allowed significant local autonomy to govern its own affairs and we can't have a repetition of what happened in 1995.
Popped to my newsagents earlier for bread and milk.
They had an absolute stack of papers. Way, way more than they usually have. This was 7pm. Looks like masses of unsold.
Did the papers print a ton more than normal as they thought it was a big selling event?
I dont think Crimea will be Ukrainian again. It's the most likely to have some genuine Russian support and more strategic value than the Donbas it seems, so I could envisage Ruddis giving up on the latter and allies not supplying Ukraine to take Crimea.
But we're still a long way from even the Donbas being won back, so I dont see what value there us in speculating if the Ukrainians might not be sensible there. Perhaps they'll be vengeful perhaps they'll be saints who knows.
Some thoughts:
Oprah Winfrey? Tom Cruise? Madonna? Brad Pitt? Paul McCartney/Ringo Starr? Mick Jagger? BTS? Elton John?
We are usually a friendly bunch
This was just as the Royal plane (containing William, Andrew and Edward) took off from Northolt, an hour later than it was scheduled to depart. Perhaps they were waiting for Harry, but couldn’t wait any longer?
I think that the form of words used in the 12:30 statement, meant something quite specific to those who get briefed on these things, hence the operation that clearly went quickly into effect, anticipating the announcement later in the day. I’m pretty sure that the media didn’t know for sure that the bridge was down, until 18:32 - it would have leaked somewhere, if a briefing had been given earlier confirming the news.
Or Putin :-(
Pitcairn.
I suspect Charles hates Labour scumbags. Don't forget former Labour PMs were explicitly snubbed at Will and Kate's nuptials.
(Or possibly Donald Trump)
Chaplin, Monroe, Beatles
Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Guevara, De Gaulle, Thatcher, Reagan, Picasso, Einstein, Diana?
Who else?
And 2014 was pretty much an exact repetition of 1995, just the other way around.
Edit: already mentioned.
Pb welcomes all voices. Until they break fundamental rules. That is key to the site’s success
Support for Ukraine against czarist Russian aggression was right. Support for imposing Ukrainian nationalism on areas where it may not be wanted - no.
My guess is that Zelensky knows that, and would win a referendum in Crimea if it was held, if only because people have had enough of war. But they shoyuld get a say.
Sad!
While I am here, this King stuff is starting to feel like Ruritanian shit. Good lols for 3 days, now can we have our queen back pls.
And if it is right now, what is to stop other countries invading a territory and deporting (or killing...) everyone who won't vote for it?