With supply lines cut, it has been said for several days the garrison in Kherson is running low on ammunition with no chance of reinforcement. There has been talk (by the Ukrainians) of surrender terms being negotiated.
If Kherson falls without a fight, then the Special Military Operation is effectively at an end. It also means Ukraine can walk into Crimea. Taking the weaponry of 20,000 of Russia's best equipped troops with them.
It should now be quite clear that if you want the war over quickly, then supplying arms to Ukraine is the way to achieve that end.
Indeed. Unless you are Germany, where you still seem to not to want to piss off Putin. Or his successor.
History is certainly coming at us fast this September. And not even half way through it yet
I read Germany has actually provided a great deal of weapons. They seem to be getting bad press of the back of initial delays?
I think it's more a policy disagreement than a matter of the amount.
They provided a lot of obsolete stuff early on, but have taken many months to be persuaded to send the more desired stuff (eg the Gepards), and are still refusing what would be most useful now - Marders and Leopards. Ukraine has offered to purchase the latter, so it's not a matter of money.
Clearly there is reluctance, but as said on previous thread Germany has said it doesn't want to go it alone and be the only country to supply modern western battle tanks, so assume this is actually a NATO wide policy. Presumably the US views it as an escalation - otherwise Ukraine would already have some?
It's something of a mystery, but it's been denied that there is any such NATO policy veto. The supply of the Gepards - which are essentially a Leopard I chassis - makes arguments about Ukraine not being able to operate them moot. It's possible, as claimed, that the kit in storage would just take too much effort to ready for use, but I can't see that being a problem which would last 6 months.
Realistically, Germany or the US are the only two suppliers for now.
What should really scare Russia is that NATO has only sent out part of its arsenal; and that it has is only the second XI.
The thing that NATO really needs to supply Ukraine is the latest state of the art missile defences, to put initially around the main Ukrainian cites but eventually to provide an effective country-wide shield.
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
The use of nuclear weapons would make Russia's give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm. I hope they are smart enough to realise that.
The invasion of Ukraine would give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm.
They weren't smart enough to realise that.
This is the point of maximum danger. Putin has clearly lost. Even if his army holds what it has, it's a fraction of what he wanted and the army is a fraction of what it was. He is most unlikely to survive such an abject humiliation.
Therefore, what does he have left to lose by using his weapons of last resort? Not a lot.
I have to say I wonder if a smart move right now would be to offer him asylum in the west in exchange for withdrawing his troops. Yes, I'd rather see the bastard dangling from a lamppost in Kherson but if it put an end to the war without further bloodshed...
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
And Russia without direct access to a warm water port
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
The use of nuclear weapons would make Russia's give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm. I hope they are smart enough to realise that.
The invasion of Ukraine would give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm.
They weren't smart enough to realise that.
This is the point of maximum danger. Putin has clearly lost. Even if his army holds what it has, it's a fraction of what he wanted and the army is a fraction of what it was. He is most unlikely to survive such an abject humiliation.
Therefore, what does he have left to lose by using his weapons of last resort? Not a lot.
I have to say I wonder if a smart move right now would be to offer him asylum in the west in exchange for withdrawing his troops. Yes, I'd rather see the bastard dangling from a lamppost in Kherson but if it put an end to the war without further bloodshed...
Putin wouldn't trust the West enough to do that. He might trust China.
'A PROTEST is being held outside St Giles' Cathedral where the Queen's coffin is lying in state after a man was threatened with arrest for holding a blank piece of paper.
A line of people holding a blank sheet and blank pieces of paper has formed outside the historic venue in defence of freedom of speech.'
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
And Russia without direct access to a warm water port
It's not going to have that anyway when this is finished unless something changes. Novorossiysk is going to be in range of Ukrainian weapons if they retake Crimea.
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
The use of nuclear weapons would make Russia's give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm. I hope they are smart enough to realise that.
The invasion of Ukraine would give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm.
They weren't smart enough to realise that.
This is the point of maximum danger. Putin has clearly lost. Even if his army holds what it has, it's a fraction of what he wanted and the army is a fraction of what it was. He is most unlikely to survive such an abject humiliation.
Therefore, what does he have left to lose by using his weapons of last resort? Not a lot.
I have to say I wonder if a smart move right now would be to offer him asylum in the west in exchange for withdrawing his troops. Yes, I'd rather see the bastard dangling from a lamppost in Kherson but if it put an end to the war without further bloodshed...
Not in the West, I don't think. China much more likely.
Although...isn't there a hotel somewhere in Rwanda we've got booked?
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
The use of nuclear weapons would make Russia's give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm. I hope they are smart enough to realise that.
The invasion of Ukraine would give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm.
They weren't smart enough to realise that.
This is the point of maximum danger. Putin has clearly lost. Even if his army holds what it has, it's a fraction of what he wanted and the army is a fraction of what it was. He is most unlikely to survive such an abject humiliation.
Therefore, what does he have left to lose by using his weapons of last resort? Not a lot.
I have to say I wonder if a smart move right now would be to offer him asylum in the west in exchange for withdrawing his troops. Yes, I'd rather see the bastard dangling from a lamppost in Kherson but if it put an end to the war without further bloodshed...
Not in the West, I don't think. China much more likely.
Although...isn't there a hotel somewhere in Rwanda we've got booked?
Well, yes, but did Rwanda do something bad to you that you would inflict Putin on them?
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
The use of nuclear weapons would make Russia's give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm. I hope they are smart enough to realise that.
And the elite are plugged in enough to the West to know this. The order to do that could be the thing that causes Putin to get deposed.
So far, the elites deposing (or even moderating Putin) is the dog that hasn't barked. Since the beginning of the war, we have been saying the oligarchs won't stand for it, there will be a palace coup etc, but the number of mysterious defenestrations suggests that, for now at least, Putin has an absolute grip on power, backed up by the security services. He is, after all, ex-KGB.
Of course, if Putin loses the confidence of the security services then things could change very quickly, but for now that is pure speculation. The evidence as it stands is he's in control.
So for now, I think we have to operate under the assumption that if he orders the use of nuclear weapons, that order will be obeyed, or else the person disobeying will find themselves flung out of a window and replaced by someone who will.
So the question is, is he mad or desperate enough? And do we know enough about the security services to believe they will move against him if he does?
"Agreement" in the context of the Johnson administration and the devolved nations is a very weasel word, especially when UKG retains key financial powers.
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
The use of nuclear weapons would make Russia's give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm. I hope they are smart enough to realise that.
The invasion of Ukraine would give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm.
They weren't smart enough to realise that.
This is the point of maximum danger. Putin has clearly lost. Even if his army holds what it has, it's a fraction of what he wanted and the army is a fraction of what it was. He is most unlikely to survive such an abject humiliation.
Therefore, what does he have left to lose by using his weapons of last resort? Not a lot.
I have to say I wonder if a smart move right now would be to offer him asylum in the west in exchange for withdrawing his troops. Yes, I'd rather see the bastard dangling from a lamppost in Kherson but if it put an end to the war without further bloodshed...
Not in the West, I don't think. China much more likely.
Although...isn't there a hotel somewhere in Rwanda we've got booked?
Well, yes, but did Rwanda do something bad to you that you would inflict Putin on them?
With supply lines cut, it has been said for several days the garrison in Kherson is running low on ammunition with no chance of reinforcement. There has been talk (by the Ukrainians) of surrender terms being negotiated.
If Kherson falls without a fight, then the Special Military Operation is effectively at an end. It also means Ukraine can walk into Crimea. Taking the weaponry of 20,000 of Russia's best equipped troops with them.
It should now be quite clear that if you want the war over quickly, then supplying arms to Ukraine is the way to achieve that end.
Indeed. Unless you are Germany, where you still seem to not to want to piss off Putin. Or his successor.
History is certainly coming at us fast this September. And not even half way through it yet
I read Germany has actually provided a great deal of weapons. They seem to be getting bad press of the back of initial delays?
I think it's more a policy disagreement than a matter of the amount.
They provided a lot of obsolete stuff early on, but have taken many months to be persuaded to send the more desired stuff (eg the Gepards), and are still refusing what would be most useful now - Marders and Leopards. Ukraine has offered to purchase the latter, so it's not a matter of money.
Clearly there is reluctance, but as said on previous thread Germany has said it doesn't want to go it alone and be the only country to supply modern western battle tanks, so assume this is actually a NATO wide policy. Presumably the US views it as an escalation - otherwise Ukraine would already have some?
It's something of a mystery, but it's been denied that there is any such NATO policy veto. The supply of the Gepards - which are essentially a Leopard I chassis - makes arguments about Ukraine not being able to operate them moot. It's possible, as claimed, that the kit in storage would just take too much effort to ready for use, but I can't see that being a problem which would last 6 months.
Realistically, Germany or the US are the only two suppliers for now.
What should really scare Russia is that NATO has only sent out part of its arsenal; and that it has is only the second XI.
The thing that NATO really needs to supply Ukraine is the latest state of the art missile defences, to put initially around the main Ukrainian cites but eventually to provide an effective country-wide shield.
The US is starting to send NASAMS, which is pretty capable.
"Agreement" in the context of the Johnson administration and the devolved nations is a very weasel word, especially when UKG retains key financial powers.
Let's see the minutes/transcripts. Using "English" doesn't suggest a balanced view.
If the Kherson garrison surrenders (or kills itself in red-on-red fights, as reported) then Crimea is wide open. They may as well escape before HIMARS brings down the Kerch bridge leaving them trapped.
Not sure that is as easy as it sounds. The Crimean isthmus is quite narrow and marshy, and the Kerch bridge out of HIMARS range.
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
The use of nuclear weapons would make Russia's give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm. I hope they are smart enough to realise that.
And the elite are plugged in enough to the West to know this. The order to do that could be the thing that causes Putin to get deposed.
So far, the elites deposing (or even moderating Putin) is the dog that hasn't barked. Since the beginning of the war, we have been saying the oligarchs won't stand for it, there will be a palace coup etc, but the number of mysterious defenestrations suggests that, for now at least, Putin has an absolute grip on power, backed up by the security services. He is, after all, ex-KGB.
Of course, if Putin loses the confidence of the security services then things could change very quickly, but for now that is pure speculation. The evidence as it stands is he's in control.
So for now, I think we have to operate under the assumption that if he orders the use of nuclear weapons, that order will be obeyed, or else the person disobeying will find themselves flung out of a window and replaced by someone who will.
So the question is, is he mad or desperate enough? And do we know enough about the security services to believe they will move against him if he does?
Yeah, sure.
They're obeying him whatever orders he gives about slaughtering people thousands of miles away. So they're bound to carry on obeying him if he tries to slaughter them and their families. Logical.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
Would that not depend on the size and detonation height of the bomb(s)?
(Though any bomb would be awful for those stood next to it.)
No nuclear strike using any weapon that currently exists could wipe out oil and gas deposits below the seabed. Even a Tsar Bomb would fuck everything up for hundreds of miles around on the surface, but leave the sub-seabed geology largely alone.
Last night, I understand that the Ukrainians cyber-army hacked in to the TV networks and put Zaleski on the air,
I don't know how long for, but presumably long enough to say 'Don't worry we are on our way to liberate you and only the collaborators will be punished.
Crimea has a population of about 2.4 million, so it would only take a small proportion of that to panic and then traffic jams on the bridge. Nut the total numbers and significance may not be a big as the tweet implies.
PS good on the Ukrainian Cyber army for this accumbent, very modern/effective and driving the narrative.
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
The use of nuclear weapons would make Russia's give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm. I hope they are smart enough to realise that.
The invasion of Ukraine would give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm.
They weren't smart enough to realise that.
This is the point of maximum danger. Putin has clearly lost. Even if his army holds what it has, it's a fraction of what he wanted and the army is a fraction of what it was. He is most unlikely to survive such an abject humiliation.
Therefore, what does he have left to lose by using his weapons of last resort? Not a lot.
I have to say I wonder if a smart move right now would be to offer him asylum in the west in exchange for withdrawing his troops. Yes, I'd rather see the bastard dangling from a lamppost in Kherson but if it put an end to the war without further bloodshed...
Putin wouldn't trust the West enough to do that. He might trust China.
Both Krushchev and Gorbachov were allowed to retire in peace, as were a number of their supporters. I suspect an ignominious domestic retirement to a gilded Dacha would be fine by his successors.
With supply lines cut, it has been said for several days the garrison in Kherson is running low on ammunition with no chance of reinforcement. There has been talk (by the Ukrainians) of surrender terms being negotiated.
If Kherson falls without a fight, then the Special Military Operation is effectively at an end. It also means Ukraine can walk into Crimea. Taking the weaponry of 20,000 of Russia's best equipped troops with them.
It should now be quite clear that if you want the war over quickly, then supplying arms to Ukraine is the way to achieve that end.
Indeed. Unless you are Germany, where you still seem to not to want to piss off Putin. Or his successor.
History is certainly coming at us fast this September. And not even half way through it yet
You seem to be obsessed with Germany, which has supplied more weapons to Ukraine than anyone except the US and UK. Try mixing it up a bit and complain about Italy, for example, once in a while just for a change.
Germany could have had Leopard tanks on a train and through Poland and into Ukraine within 24 hours.
It's not as if they don't have practice... A fact that seems to hang heavily around their necks and stopping them doing the right thing.
That, and fears over their energy supplies. The Germans should atone not for their WW2 memories, but for their far more recent fucking over of Europe's energy security with Nordstream.
So yes, I think Germany needs to do something to make amends. Fast.
Why doesn't Trussed Up send the Ukrainians some CR2 tanks? She's got 400+ and only 48 are getting fully upgraded to CR3.
Maybe all those Ukrainians we are training can drive home in one....
With supply lines cut, it has been said for several days the garrison in Kherson is running low on ammunition with no chance of reinforcement. There has been talk (by the Ukrainians) of surrender terms being negotiated.
If Kherson falls without a fight, then the Special Military Operation is effectively at an end. It also means Ukraine can walk into Crimea. Taking the weaponry of 20,000 of Russia's best equipped troops with them.
It should now be quite clear that if you want the war over quickly, then supplying arms to Ukraine is the way to achieve that end.
Indeed. Unless you are Germany, where you still seem to not to want to piss off Putin. Or his successor.
History is certainly coming at us fast this September. And not even half way through it yet
You seem to be obsessed with Germany, which has supplied more weapons to Ukraine than anyone except the US and UK. Try mixing it up a bit and complain about Italy, for example, once in a while just for a change.
Germany could have had Leopard tanks on a train and through Poland and into Ukraine within 24 hours.
It's not as if they don't have practice... A fact that seems to hang heavily around their necks and stopping them doing the right thing.
That, and fears over their energy supplies. The Germans should atone not for their WW2 memories, but for their far more recent fucking over of Europe's energy security with Nordstream.
So yes, I think Germany needs to do something to make amends. Fast.
Why doesn't Trussed Up send the Ukrainians some CR2 tanks? She's got 400+ and only 48 are getting fully upgraded to CR3.
Maybe all those Ukrainians we are training can drive home in one....
Aside from maintenance levels, there is the issue of ammunition. The U.K. military stupidly held onto to rifled tank guns long after the rest of NATO went smooth bore.
I think Dura was just trolling you/us; it wasn't a serious suggestion.
Maybe. But it’s also a perfect example of how defence procurement has been fucked up. We are the proud owners of tanks that no one wants because of incompatibility.
Because Unique British Requirements (TM)
I've been saying for a while that we should scrap them. Waste of time and resources.
Arguable - the sensible options include...
1) New turret with a modern gun and the related ammunition handling. 2) Buy a new tank chassis and fit UK armour arrays to it 3) Buy off the shelf.
2) might be the politically the easiest sell. But it would require some dedicated procurement officers, armed with Kukris, to chop the hands off anyone who tries to add "Unique British requirements".
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
Would that not depend on the size and detonation height of the bomb(s)?
(Though any bomb would be awful for those stood next to it.)
No nuclear strike using any weapon that currently exists could wipe out oil and gas deposits below the seabed. Even a Tsar Bomb would fuck everything up for hundreds of miles around on the surface, but leave the sub-seabed geology largely alone.
Anything they launched into Crimea wouldn't be an ICBM, it would be a truck launched or perhaps a sub launch, but most likely a quickly programmed truck launch so would be a relativly small yield (still in 3 figures kilotons though), Nukemap suggests a 250kt surface drop on Sevastopol would kill 100,000 and injure a similar number before fallout is taken into account. Grotesque, one smallish nuke
We see Russia trying to source weapons and retired military personnel from Tajikistan. It's clear that, although they are desperate to do whatever they can to generate additional combat power, they are still unwilling to declare war and trigger a formal mobilisation.
I find it hard to believe they would use nuclear weapons before exhausting the conventional options open to them.
I think, ultimately, if the situation is so desperate that nuclear weapon use might be considered then the priority for Putin will be retaining control in Moscow, and not territory in Ukraine. Does unleashing nuclear weapons on Ukraine help with power struggles within the Kremlin? I don't see it.
With supply lines cut, it has been said for several days the garrison in Kherson is running low on ammunition with no chance of reinforcement. There has been talk (by the Ukrainians) of surrender terms being negotiated.
If Kherson falls without a fight, then the Special Military Operation is effectively at an end. It also means Ukraine can walk into Crimea. Taking the weaponry of 20,000 of Russia's best equipped troops with them.
It should now be quite clear that if you want the war over quickly, then supplying arms to Ukraine is the way to achieve that end.
Indeed. Unless you are Germany, where you still seem to not to want to piss off Putin. Or his successor.
History is certainly coming at us fast this September. And not even half way through it yet
I read Germany has actually provided a great deal of weapons. They seem to be getting bad press of the back of initial delays?
I think it's more a policy disagreement than a matter of the amount.
They provided a lot of obsolete stuff early on, but have taken many months to be persuaded to send the more desired stuff (eg the Gepards), and are still refusing what would be most useful now - Marders and Leopards. Ukraine has offered to purchase the latter, so it's not a matter of money.
Clearly there is reluctance, but as said on previous thread Germany has said it doesn't want to go it alone and be the only country to supply modern western battle tanks, so assume this is actually a NATO wide policy. Presumably the US views it as an escalation - otherwise Ukraine would already have some?
It's something of a mystery, but it's been denied that there is any such NATO policy veto. The supply of the Gepards - which are essentially a Leopard I chassis - makes arguments about Ukraine not being able to operate them moot. It's possible, as claimed, that the kit in storage would just take too much effort to ready for use, but I can't see that being a problem which would last 6 months.
Realistically, Germany or the US are the only two suppliers for now.
Of course NATO wouldn't announce any such policy, they would keep their options open, and maybe there isn't any strictly formulated policy as such. If, as you say, the US and Germany are the only possible suppliers (which surprises me a little), it seems neither country wants to take that step, which must surely have been discussed (and I suppose agreed) between them at the highest level, whatever excuses are given publicly. It may be the whole thing is deliberate mind games.
With supply lines cut, it has been said for several days the garrison in Kherson is running low on ammunition with no chance of reinforcement. There has been talk (by the Ukrainians) of surrender terms being negotiated.
If Kherson falls without a fight, then the Special Military Operation is effectively at an end. It also means Ukraine can walk into Crimea. Taking the weaponry of 20,000 of Russia's best equipped troops with them.
It should now be quite clear that if you want the war over quickly, then supplying arms to Ukraine is the way to achieve that end.
Indeed. Unless you are Germany, where you still seem to not to want to piss off Putin. Or his successor.
History is certainly coming at us fast this September. And not even half way through it yet
You seem to be obsessed with Germany, which has supplied more weapons to Ukraine than anyone except the US and UK. Try mixing it up a bit and complain about Italy, for example, once in a while just for a change.
Germany could have had Leopard tanks on a train and through Poland and into Ukraine within 24 hours.
It's not as if they don't have practice... A fact that seems to hang heavily around their necks and stopping them doing the right thing.
That, and fears over their energy supplies. The Germans should atone not for their WW2 memories, but for their far more recent fucking over of Europe's energy security with Nordstream.
So yes, I think Germany needs to do something to make amends. Fast.
Why doesn't Trussed Up send the Ukrainians some CR2 tanks? She's got 400+ and only 48 are getting fully upgraded to CR3.
Maybe all those Ukrainians we are training can drive home in one....
With supply lines cut, it has been said for several days the garrison in Kherson is running low on ammunition with no chance of reinforcement. There has been talk (by the Ukrainians) of surrender terms being negotiated.
If Kherson falls without a fight, then the Special Military Operation is effectively at an end. It also means Ukraine can walk into Crimea. Taking the weaponry of 20,000 of Russia's best equipped troops with them.
It should now be quite clear that if you want the war over quickly, then supplying arms to Ukraine is the way to achieve that end.
Indeed. Unless you are Germany, where you still seem to not to want to piss off Putin. Or his successor.
History is certainly coming at us fast this September. And not even half way through it yet
You seem to be obsessed with Germany, which has supplied more weapons to Ukraine than anyone except the US and UK. Try mixing it up a bit and complain about Italy, for example, once in a while just for a change.
Germany could have had Leopard tanks on a train and through Poland and into Ukraine within 24 hours.
It's not as if they don't have practice... A fact that seems to hang heavily around their necks and stopping them doing the right thing.
That, and fears over their energy supplies. The Germans should atone not for their WW2 memories, but for their far more recent fucking over of Europe's energy security with Nordstream.
So yes, I think Germany needs to do something to make amends. Fast.
Why doesn't Trussed Up send the Ukrainians some CR2 tanks? She's got 400+ and only 48 are getting fully upgraded to CR3.
Maybe all those Ukrainians we are training can drive home in one....
Aside from maintenance levels, there is the issue of ammunition. The U.K. military stupidly held onto to rifled tank guns long after the rest of NATO went smooth bore.
I think Dura was just trolling you/us; it wasn't a serious suggestion.
Maybe. But it’s also a perfect example of how defence procurement has been fucked up. We are the proud owners of tanks that no one wants because of incompatibility.
Because Unique British Requirements (TM)
I've been saying for a while that we should scrap them. Waste of time and resources.
Arguable - the sensible options include...
1) New turret with a modern gun and the related ammunition handling. 2) Buy a new tank chassis and fit UK armour arrays to it 3) Buy off the shelf.
2) might be the politically the easiest sell. But it would require some dedicated procurement officers, armed with Kukris, to chop the hands off anyone who tries to add "Unique British requirements".
The only unique British requirements I can see are the fact that we're an island, and serious unlikelihood of our fighting a tank battle any time soon. If ever.
Last night, I understand that the Ukrainians cyber-army hacked in to the TV networks and put Zaleski on the air,
I don't know how long for, but presumably long enough to say 'Don't worry we are on our way to liberate you and only the collaborators will be punished.
Crimea has a population of about 2.4 million, so it would only take a small proportion of that to panic and then traffic jams on the bridge. Nut the total numbers and significance may not be a big as the tweet implies.
PS good on the Ukrainian Cyber army for this accumbent, very modern/effective and driving the narrative.
They have also sent text messages to all Russian phones in Ukraine, giving the number to call if you want to surrender....
"Agreement" in the context of the Johnson administration and the devolved nations is a very weasel word, especially when UKG retains key financial powers.
Let's see the minutes/transcripts. Using "English" doesn't suggest a balanced view.
What else could it use? UK wouldn't make sense in the context, as UKG *is* the English Gmt in certain respects but not others. UKG is the correct term, as I indeed use, but to the unwary it implies authority over the four nations in all aspects of covid, which isn't the case.
With supply lines cut, it has been said for several days the garrison in Kherson is running low on ammunition with no chance of reinforcement. There has been talk (by the Ukrainians) of surrender terms being negotiated.
If Kherson falls without a fight, then the Special Military Operation is effectively at an end. It also means Ukraine can walk into Crimea. Taking the weaponry of 20,000 of Russia's best equipped troops with them.
It should now be quite clear that if you want the war over quickly, then supplying arms to Ukraine is the way to achieve that end.
Indeed. Unless you are Germany, where you still seem to not to want to piss off Putin. Or his successor.
History is certainly coming at us fast this September. And not even half way through it yet
I read Germany has actually provided a great deal of weapons. They seem to be getting bad press of the back of initial delays?
I think it's more a policy disagreement than a matter of the amount.
They provided a lot of obsolete stuff early on, but have taken many months to be persuaded to send the more desired stuff (eg the Gepards), and are still refusing what would be most useful now - Marders and Leopards. Ukraine has offered to purchase the latter, so it's not a matter of money.
Clearly there is reluctance, but as said on previous thread Germany has said it doesn't want to go it alone and be the only country to supply modern western battle tanks, so assume this is actually a NATO wide policy. Presumably the US views it as an escalation - otherwise Ukraine would already have some?
It's something of a mystery, but it's been denied that there is any such NATO policy veto. The supply of the Gepards - which are essentially a Leopard I chassis - makes arguments about Ukraine not being able to operate them moot. It's possible, as claimed, that the kit in storage would just take too much effort to ready for use, but I can't see that being a problem which would last 6 months.
Realistically, Germany or the US are the only two suppliers for now.
Of course NATO wouldn't announce any such policy, they would keep their options open, and maybe there isn't any strictly formulated policy as such. If, as you say, the US and Germany are the only possible suppliers (which surprises me a little), it seems neither country wants to take that step, which must surely have been discussed (and I suppose agreed) between them at the highest level, whatever excuses are given publicly. It may be the whole thing is deliberate mind games.
Germany and the US are the only NATO countries (apart from the UK) that have substantial numbers of tanks in storage.
The US has the issue that, due to Congressional pork, the stored tanks have mostly been updated to the latest spec, with the latest armour arrays. Once the latest armour arrays are captured by an opponent, you then have to start designing a new one, and roll that out across the entire fleet. Quite apart from the funky electronics in the tank.
The Germans have literal shedloads of Leopards. Not updated and moderately obsolete by Western standards. They wouldn't require much if anything to be removed for security before giving them to Ukraine.
The UK tanks are handicapped by using unique ammunition for which there are virtually no suppliers.
If the Kherson garrison surrenders (or kills itself in red-on-red fights, as reported) then Crimea is wide open. They may as well escape before HIMARS brings down the Kerch bridge leaving them trapped.
Not sure that is as easy as it sounds. The Crimean isthmus is quite narrow and marshy, and the Kerch bridge out of HIMARS range.
A few months back, I was thinking alot about how to 'destroy' a bridge - in relation to my limited civil engineering background.
In civilian life, a small amount of damage to a bridge can make it unusable to some traffic. A classic example is damage to the bearings, which the bridge sits on and allows movement/expansion. Put a few kilos of explosives on these and the civilian authorities will be shutting the bridge down for a lengthyish inspection and repair.
But it has not 'brought the bridge down', and in times of war, the authorities can just tell people to keep on using it. As the Remagen bridge in 1945 shows, even a bridge having suffered severe damage over months from both Allies and Germans could be used for ten days before it finally fell.
And as the various bridges in Kherson show, you can hit the bridge many times with accurate munitions and still have it usable by some forces.
Bridges are *really* hard to 'destroy', but you may not need to destroy it to reduce its usefulness to the enemy. Much depends on the design, with post-tensioned designs probably being swines to repair.
So what does this mean for the Kerch Bridge? I doubt we're going to see pictures of it, or a span, 'falling' - especially as for some of the way it is actually two independent bridges side-by-side (road and rail). But we may see it being hit enough to stop rail traffic and heavy road traffic, if only by swiss-cheesing the decks.
But all bets are off if you get a team of operatives to the important parts of the bridge with a ?hundred kilos? of explosives and knowledge of where to place them...
If the Kherson garrison surrenders (or kills itself in red-on-red fights, as reported) then Crimea is wide open. They may as well escape before HIMARS brings down the Kerch bridge leaving them trapped.
Not sure that is as easy as it sounds. The Crimean isthmus is quite narrow and marshy, and the Kerch bridge out of HIMARS range.
That kinda depends what range shells the Americans are providing. So far, the long range stuff has not been provided. For fear of them striking well inside Russia, presumably. But long as the understanding is they are for that sole purpose of bringing down the bridge....
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
This has to go down as one of the all time largest military disasters of all time for the Russians doesn't it.
Utter humiliation.
It's not as bad (yet) as the Battle of Tsushima IMO. But it's a close-run thing. They nearly won Ukraine in late February, they never stood a chance at Tsushima.
(It's interesting to think how different the world would look today if Russia had just had a few pieces of luck in February around Kyiv. Or the Ukrainians had not had NLAWs...)
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
The use of nuclear weapons would make Russia's give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm. I hope they are smart enough to realise that.
And the elite are plugged in enough to the West to know this. The order to do that could be the thing that causes Putin to get deposed.
So far, the elites deposing (or even moderating Putin) is the dog that hasn't barked. Since the beginning of the war, we have been saying the oligarchs won't stand for it, there will be a palace coup etc, but the number of mysterious defenestrations suggests that, for now at least, Putin has an absolute grip on power, backed up by the security services. He is, after all, ex-KGB.
Of course, if Putin loses the confidence of the security services then things could change very quickly, but for now that is pure speculation. The evidence as it stands is he's in control.
So for now, I think we have to operate under the assumption that if he orders the use of nuclear weapons, that order will be obeyed, or else the person disobeying will find themselves flung out of a window and replaced by someone who will.
So the question is, is he mad or desperate enough? And do we know enough about the security services to believe they will move against him if he does?
Yeah, sure.
They're obeying him whatever orders he gives about slaughtering people thousands of miles away. So they're bound to carry on obeying him if he tries to slaughter them and their families. Logical.
We have absolutely no idea what sort of command and control structure is in place for Russia's nuclear arsenal. We have a fair idea of how it operated in Soviet times, but today - who knows how many people are in the chain of command between the order being given and the firing key, and how loyal they are to Putin. So whether or not nuclear weapons would be used is pure speculation at this time.
However.
If I were a dictator looking to ensure that my order to use battlefield nukes would be carried out, the way I would do it would be to set it up well in advance, while I still had total control, and keep the people carrying out the task in the dark.
For example, Putin could have used the security services to route a battlefield nuke to Ukraine under the guise of "special munitions" all the way back in March. Ordinary soldiers on the ground are told it's a phosphorous bomb or something. Get the bomb in place long in advance of it needing to be used and keep it under wraps using the security services to obscure the paper trail.
Then, when it's time to use it, give the order to fire the "special phosphorous bombs", wink wink. The ordinary soldiers carrying out the order take the special munitions out of storage, attach them to the truck launched firing device, and never know what they're actually launching until it's too late.
This is just speculative fiction, but the point is that there are plenty of ways round the "nobody would ever be nuts enough to fire a nuke" argument. Not telling the knuckle draggers doing the firing what they are actually firing would be one easy way of doing it.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
We see Russia trying to source weapons and retired military personnel from Tajikistan. It's clear that, although they are desperate to do whatever they can to generate additional combat power, they are still unwilling to declare war and trigger a formal mobilisation.
I find it hard to believe they would use nuclear weapons before exhausting the conventional options open to them.
I think, ultimately, if the situation is so desperate that nuclear weapon use might be considered then the priority for Putin will be retaining control in Moscow, and not territory in Ukraine. Does unleashing nuclear weapons on Ukraine help with power struggles within the Kremlin? I don't see it.
The most logical series of events for Russia now, if they're doing logic, would be:
- Go all-in on defence along the whole line for at least a couple of weeks: throw everything at it, in the hope that the lines will stall and Ukraine will need to take a pause - Let the idea settle in Europe that the counteroffensive has run out of steam and we're heading for stalemate - Declare a ceasefire and make a "generous offer" to withdraw from all areas outside Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts as a prelude to talks on the future of those regions - Look and sound as reasonable as possible until Western unity on Ukraine cracks - Negotiate a face-saving deal. Get a few sanctions lifted. Crack down on dissent at home. - Wait a decade - Invade Ukraine again
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Its not that long ago that Putin apologists on this site were saying the idea of Crimea falling was laughable and not achievable.
The curtain has really been pulled back and shown Russia in its true, wretched state.
The thing is, that could be a cue for instability and unrest in all kinds of areas where the Russians have influence. Syria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Chechnya etc.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
We see Russia trying to source weapons and retired military personnel from Tajikistan. It's clear that, although they are desperate to do whatever they can to generate additional combat power, they are still unwilling to declare war and trigger a formal mobilisation.
I find it hard to believe they would use nuclear weapons before exhausting the conventional options open to them.
I think, ultimately, if the situation is so desperate that nuclear weapon use might be considered then the priority for Putin will be retaining control in Moscow, and not territory in Ukraine. Does unleashing nuclear weapons on Ukraine help with power struggles within the Kremlin? I don't see it.
I've hear this on Twitter and i think too much is being read in to this ammunition from Tajikistan (and that from North Korea a few days ago)
Amunionion is expensive, very expensive. armies need big stockpiles ready for war, but only need to use a little for tranng in peace time. unfortunately it also has a shelf life, typically 20-25 years i the west, Russia and others often push it out to 30-35 years, but the longer you push it the less effective it becomes and the bigger the chage of a miss-fire.
therefore army's buy some each year and use the oldest for training, but normally still find they have to fire off lots of extra old amunion that is not needed for traning, this is expensive, and amongst other things whereas out the barrels of the guns.
Russia was thought to have 15-48 million artillery shells at the stat of the conflict, and has used maybe 5 million so far, they are unlikely to be at or near the end of that. they might however be thinking of sensible stock management. What's probably happened, is Russia has seed to the to North Korea and Tajikistan, lets swap, you give me 100,000 old shells about to go out of date and we will give you 50,000 fairly new shells that will last another 20 years. Both party's benefit, makes sense all round.
I would love to think this is some indication that Russia is almost out of amnion, but just become it would be nice to think that it does not make it accurate, and it almost certainly is not.
also, Russia has been recruiting men for Tajikistan form late March, nothing new there, perhaps they have stepped up efforts, but its not new. and we should not read too much in to it.
Its not that long ago that Putin apologists on this site were saying the idea of Crimea falling was laughable and not achievable.
The curtain has really been pulled back and shown Russia in its true, wretched state.
Frankly, when the invasion started I thought the Russians would be in Kyiv within a week or so, those choosing to take up arms to defend would be massacred and Zelensky would either be dead or in exile. I felt a kind of sad respect for the Ukranian army and volunteers who were about to die in a futile cause.
Shows how wrong a far-away observer with no military knowledge can be. But I think I was far from alone, joined even by some who perhaps were in a position to have known better.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
In KCIII's case, he might be a bit sore about the time taken to become King.
We see Russia trying to source weapons and retired military personnel from Tajikistan. It's clear that, although they are desperate to do whatever they can to generate additional combat power, they are still unwilling to declare war and trigger a formal mobilisation.
I find it hard to believe they would use nuclear weapons before exhausting the conventional options open to them.
I think, ultimately, if the situation is so desperate that nuclear weapon use might be considered then the priority for Putin will be retaining control in Moscow, and not territory in Ukraine. Does unleashing nuclear weapons on Ukraine help with power struggles within the Kremlin? I don't see it.
I've hear this on Twitter and i think too much is being read in to this ammunition from Tajikistan (and that from North Korea a few days ago)
Amunionion is expensive, very expensive. armies need big stockpiles ready for war, but only need to use a little for tranng in peace time. unfortunately it also has a shelf life, typically 20-25 years i the west, Russia and others often push it out to 30-35 years, but the longer you push it the less effective it becomes and the bigger the chage of a miss-fire.
therefore army's buy some each year and use the oldest for training, but normally still find they have to fire off lots of extra old amunion that is not needed for traning, this is expensive, and amongst other things whereas out the barrels of the guns.
Russia was thought to have 15-48 million artillery shells at the stat of the conflict, and has used maybe 5 million so far, they are unlikely to be at or near the end of that. they might however be thinking of sensible stock management. What's probably happened, is Russia has seed to the to North Korea and Tajikistan, lets swap, you give me 100,000 old shells about to go out of date and we will give you 50,000 fairly new shells that will last another 20 years. Both party's benefit, makes sense all round.
I would love to think this is some indication that Russia is almost out of amnion, but just become it would be nice to think that it does not make it accurate, and it almost certainly is not.
also, Russia has been recruiting men for Tajikistan form late March, nothing new there, perhaps they have stepped up efforts, but its not new. and we should not read too much in to it.
The bigs problems the Russians have with artillery, if reports are to be believed, are shot out barrels (few or no replacements) and premature detonations in the bore due to old, out of spec ammo. Ouch.
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
And Russia without direct access to a warm water port
It's not going to have that anyway when this is finished unless something changes. Novorossiysk is going to be in range of Ukrainian weapons if they retake Crimea.
any russians feeling nostalgic for better times can still use google earth to see their lovely Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol, including the Moskva at ///fizzled.showed.ridiculed.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Its not that long ago that Putin apologists on this site were saying the idea of Crimea falling was laughable and not achievable.
The curtain has really been pulled back and shown Russia in its true, wretched state.
The thing is, that could be a cue for instability and unrest in all kinds of areas where the Russians have influence. Syria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Chechnya etc.
Of all those I wonder if Syria is the most promising. ISIS now being virtually neutralised and the Kurds doing their own thing in the North, there's an opportunity for the FSA - who have held on to a reasonable amount of territory despite Russian bombing - to make some headway. The West was reluctant to support them wholeheartedly before for fear of coming to blows with Russia, and creating a vacuum that would enable ISIS. Assad is in danger of losing his most powerful protector and Iran isn't in a position to fill a gap that big.
Armenia-Azerbaijan is somewhat less straightforward. Both sides have been the bad guys but also have genuine cause for grievance. It really needs a long term negotiated solution.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Crimea is potentially very dangerous for Russia. The bridge East can easily be destroyed by HIMARs once the Ukrainians are in range and the Northern exit will be closed rapidly after the Ukrainians take Kherson. There could be tens of thousands of troops cut off and slowly pummeled.
Or - and I hate to say it - it could be wiped out in one Russian nuclear strike. Which would leave it uninhabitable and the gas deposits off its seabeds inaccessible, not to mention cutting Ukraine's seaways.
I really hope that is not the reason for the panic, if there is one.
The use of nuclear weapons would make Russia's give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm. I hope they are smart enough to realise that.
The invasion of Ukraine would give Russia a decades long pariah status, which would make current relations with the rest of the world (including China) look positively warm.
They weren't smart enough to realise that.
This is the point of maximum danger. Putin has clearly lost. Even if his army holds what it has, it's a fraction of what he wanted and the army is a fraction of what it was. He is most unlikely to survive such an abject humiliation.
Therefore, what does he have left to lose by using his weapons of last resort? Not a lot.
I have to say I wonder if a smart move right now would be to offer him asylum in the west in exchange for withdrawing his troops. Yes, I'd rather see the bastard dangling from a lamppost in Kherson but if it put an end to the war without further bloodshed...
Not in the West, I don't think. China much more likely.
Although...isn't there a hotel somewhere in Rwanda we've got booked?
I find the B52 story a bit odd. The article notes that these particular bombers were deployed to Britain *after* the invasion of Ukraine, and the timing today at a particular moment of apparent high tension also seems strange. It may just be a random mishap, ofcourse, but perhaps also, considering the bomb fleet, it could be a subtle intended "signal" of some kind ? It somewhat reminds me of the famously odd 1975 military "manoeuvres" at Heathrow, but on an international basis.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
I don't know; but it's do, not does. Tut.
Any typos I make are clearly and solely down to autocorrect
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
The Crown Estate, in effect, belongs to the government, so that would not be an issue for IHT purposes.
As to the rest, most would be untaxed under normal rules. Country houses that are open 25 days a year, significant artworks, are exempt, thanks to Roy Jenkins.
Farmland gets 100% business property relief, and woodlands get a special light regime.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
I don't know; but it's do, not does. Tut.
Any typos I make are clearly and solely down to autocorrect
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
I don't know; but it's do, not does. Tut.
Any typos I make are clearly and solely down to autocorrect
Including absent full stops, of course.
The irony right now?
Currently I'm updating our work report style guide.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
I don't know; but it's do, not does. Tut.
Any typos I make are clearly and solely down to autocorrect
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
The Crown Estate, in effect, belongs to the government, so that would not be an issue for IHT purposes.
As to the rest, most would be untaxed under normal rules. Country houses that are open 25 days a year, significant artworks, are exempt, thanks to Roy Jenkins.
Farmland gets 100% business property relief, and woodlands get a special light regime.
Ok, so let us sell some of the assets off to help pay down the national debt.
No need for a hosepipe round here - lots of rain in the last couple of weeks has restored the green to the landscape. Of course the reservoirs and aquifers will take time to replenish, but thats mostly just part of the normal cycle.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
The Crown Estate, in effect, belongs to the government, so that would not be an issue for IHT purposes.
As to the rest, most would be untaxed under normal rules. Country houses that are open 25 days a year, significant artworks, are exempt, thanks to Roy Jenkins.
Farmland gets 100% business property relief, and woodlands get a special light regime.
Ok, so let us sell some of the assets off to help pay down the national debt.
The return on the assets is quite good - why would you sell capital to pay debt?
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
The Crown Estate, in effect, belongs to the government, so that would not be an issue for IHT purposes.
As to the rest, most would be untaxed under normal rules. Country houses that are open 25 days a year, significant artworks, are exempt, thanks to Roy Jenkins.
Farmland gets 100% business property relief, and woodlands get a special light regime.
Ok, so let us sell some of the assets off to help pay down the national debt.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
The Crown Estate, in effect, belongs to the government, so that would not be an issue for IHT purposes.
As to the rest, most would be untaxed under normal rules. Country houses that are open 25 days a year, significant artworks, are exempt, thanks to Roy Jenkins.
Farmland gets 100% business property relief, and woodlands get a special light regime.
Ok, so let us sell some of the assets off to help pay down the national debt.
The return on the assets is quite good - why would you sell capital to pay debt?
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
I don't know; but it's do, not does. Tut.
Any typos I make are clearly and solely down to autocorrect
The election wends on, it doesn't feel from this distance like it has caught great light or hit an overriding theme, but has been a little under the surface, not least because the ongoing, now caretaker, Draghi government has continued with its major work, particularly the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (basically COVID recovery and energy security).
In as much as anything has happened, PD, the main centre-left partner, has lost a little polling ground, primarily to M5S, where Conte has had a decent campaign and is now edging Lega.
Aggregate polling around: Right 46, Centre-left 28, M5S 13, Centre 7
That still.points to a substantial right majority of 60%+ of seats in both houses.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
The Crown Estate, in effect, belongs to the government, so that would not be an issue for IHT purposes.
As to the rest, most would be untaxed under normal rules. Country houses that are open 25 days a year, significant artworks, are exempt, thanks to Roy Jenkins.
Farmland gets 100% business property relief, and woodlands get a special light regime.
Ok, so let us sell some of the assets off to help pay down the national debt.
The words drop and ocean come to mind.
Every little helps, and to quote a truly great man, it shows that we're all in this together.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
I don't know; but it's do, not does. Tut.
Any typos I make are clearly and solely down to autocorrect
Including absent full stops, of course.
Shows that we really do need Period Officers
Deleted - probably inappropriate joke.
Ugh, I'm not sure I like your precedent of self deleting inappropriate jokes.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
It hasn't taken long to get back to the infantile, has it?
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
I don't know; but it's do, not does. Tut.
Any typos I make are clearly and solely down to autocorrect
Including absent full stops, of course.
Shows that we really do need Period Officers
Deleted - probably inappropriate joke.
Ugh, I'm not sure I like your precedent of self deleting inappropriate jokes.
Where I lead, a few others may be well advised to follow.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
It hasn't taken long to get back to the infantile, has it?
Are you talking about posts about Covid-19?
Who can forget the most intelligent person on PB posting as much shite as you did.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Charles and all other beneficiaries will pay full inheritance tax on all assets received from the private estate of the Queen.
He will not pay IHT on the Queen's sovereign assets which belonged to the Crown not her personally
In the latter case, he gets the benefit of them. If other people try that with HMRC ...
And if it pertains to a state function it should be handed over to the state.
It's how much is in private trusts that is alkso of interest.
Since when did the PM pay tax for the benefit of No 10 or Chequers? The Crown Estate belongs to the Crown but most of its revenues go to the state or to ensure taxpayers don't pay for royal duties anyway
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
It hasn't taken long to get back to the infantile, has it?
"to get back to the infantile" - when did it stop, exactly?
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Charles and all other beneficiaries will pay full inheritance tax on all assets received from the private estate of the Queen.
He will not pay IHT on the Queen's sovereign assets which belonged to the Crown not her personally
In the latter case, he gets the benefit of them. If other people try that with HMRC ...
And if it pertains to a state function it should be handed over to the state.
It's how much is in private trusts that is alkso of interest.
Since when did the PM pay tax for the benefit of No 10 or Chequers? The Crown Estate belongs to the Crown but most of its revenues go to the state or to ensure taxpayers don't pay for royal duties anyway
Mr Johnson didn't have any right to the income from letting Chequers out for parties, did he?
Edit: and he had to pay for upkeep, heating, etc., for his personal flat. Only the bit pertaining to his duties was tax-free.
You can't seriously claim that a bit of the sea bed making money from wind farms, for instance, is necessary to the performance of the sovereign's duties, especially as only 25% of the income *even now* goes to the sovereign.
Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
Hmm. IANAE but surely the RF also have private trusts anyway. Though that would not count as 'sovereigh to sovereign'.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
I find the B52 story a bit odd. The article notes that these particular bombers were deployed to Britain *after* the invasion of Ukraine, and the timing today at a particular moment of apparent high tension also seems strange. It may just be a random mishap, ofcourse, but perhaps also, considering the bomb fleet, it could be a subtle intended "signal" of some kind ? It somewhat reminds me of the famously odd 1975 military "manoeuvres" at Heathrow, but on an international basis.
Comments
The thing that NATO really needs to supply Ukraine is the latest state of the art missile defences, to put initially around the main Ukrainian cites but eventually to provide an effective country-wide shield.
They weren't smart enough to realise that.
This is the point of maximum danger. Putin has clearly lost. Even if his army holds what it has, it's a fraction of what he wanted and the army is a fraction of what it was. He is most unlikely to survive such an abject humiliation.
Therefore, what does he have left to lose by using his weapons of last resort? Not a lot.
I have to say I wonder if a smart move right now would be to offer him asylum in the west in exchange for withdrawing his troops. Yes, I'd rather see the bastard dangling from a lamppost in Kherson but if it put an end to the war without further bloodshed...
'A PROTEST is being held outside St Giles' Cathedral where the Queen's coffin is lying in state after a man was threatened with arrest for holding a blank piece of paper.
A line of people holding a blank sheet and blank pieces of paper has formed outside the historic venue in defence of freedom of speech.'
Pic here
https://twitter.com/jamesmatthewsky/status/1569655592037269506?cxt=HHwWhICy8bncxMgrAAAA
Although...isn't there a hotel somewhere in Rwanda we've got booked?
@devisridhar said more people died because “England took the path of late lockdowns”
In fact, the decision to delay lockdown was agreed by all 4 nations of the UK
https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/1569648749630070785
Of course, if Putin loses the confidence of the security services then things could change very quickly, but for now that is pure speculation. The evidence as it stands is he's in control.
So for now, I think we have to operate under the assumption that if he orders the use of nuclear weapons, that order will be obeyed, or else the person disobeying will find themselves flung out of a window and replaced by someone who will.
So the question is, is he mad or desperate enough? And do we know enough about the security services to believe they will move against him if he does?
They're obeying him whatever orders he gives about slaughtering people thousands of miles away. So they're bound to carry on obeying him if he tries to slaughter them and their families. Logical.
As well as Truss, the Irish President and Irish PM, Jeffrey Donaldson, Michelle O'Neil and Naomi Long in attendance
Last night, I understand that the Ukrainians cyber-army hacked in to the TV networks and put Zaleski on the air,
I don't know how long for, but presumably long enough to say 'Don't worry we are on our way to liberate you and only the collaborators will be punished.
Crimea has a population of about 2.4 million, so it would only take a small proportion of that to panic and then traffic jams on the bridge. Nut the total numbers and significance may not be a big as the tweet implies.
PS good on the Ukrainian Cyber army for this accumbent, very modern/effective and driving the narrative.
Also, given the Russian Army Command is now not transferring any more troops into Ukraine, the pace of defeat will only accelerate.
Crimea is military indefensible if Ukraine recovers the south.
1) New turret with a modern gun and the related ammunition handling.
2) Buy a new tank chassis and fit UK armour arrays to it
3) Buy off the shelf.
2) might be the politically the easiest sell. But it would require some dedicated procurement officers, armed with Kukris, to chop the hands off anyone who tries to add "Unique British requirements".
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11206153/B52-bomber-roaming-skies-Gloucestershire-emergency-squawk-code.html
“Fainting can occur after treatment”, it helpfully warns…
Time to go out into the rain
Nukemap suggests a 250kt surface drop on Sevastopol would kill 100,000 and injure a similar number before fallout is taken into account.
Grotesque, one smallish nuke
I find it hard to believe they would use nuclear weapons before exhausting the conventional options open to them.
I think, ultimately, if the situation is so desperate that nuclear weapon use might be considered then the priority for Putin will be retaining control in Moscow, and not territory in Ukraine. Does unleashing nuclear weapons on Ukraine help with power struggles within the Kremlin? I don't see it.
Utter humiliation.
The US has the issue that, due to Congressional pork, the stored tanks have mostly been updated to the latest spec, with the latest armour arrays. Once the latest armour arrays are captured by an opponent, you then have to start designing a new one, and roll that out across the entire fleet. Quite apart from the funky electronics in the tank.
The Germans have literal shedloads of Leopards. Not updated and moderately obsolete by Western standards. They wouldn't require much if anything to be removed for security before giving them to Ukraine.
The UK tanks are handicapped by using unique ammunition for which there are virtually no suppliers.
Its not that long ago that Putin apologists on this site were saying the idea of Crimea falling was laughable and not achievable.
The curtain has really been pulled back and shown Russia in its true, wretched state.
In civilian life, a small amount of damage to a bridge can make it unusable to some traffic. A classic example is damage to the bearings, which the bridge sits on and allows movement/expansion. Put a few kilos of explosives on these and the civilian authorities will be shutting the bridge down for a lengthyish inspection and repair.
But it has not 'brought the bridge down', and in times of war, the authorities can just tell people to keep on using it. As the Remagen bridge in 1945 shows, even a bridge having suffered severe damage over months from both Allies and Germans could be used for ten days before it finally fell.
And as the various bridges in Kherson show, you can hit the bridge many times with accurate munitions and still have it usable by some forces.
Bridges are *really* hard to 'destroy', but you may not need to destroy it to reduce its usefulness to the enemy. Much depends on the design, with post-tensioned designs probably being swines to repair.
So what does this mean for the Kerch Bridge? I doubt we're going to see pictures of it, or a span, 'falling' - especially as for some of the way it is actually two independent bridges side-by-side (road and rail). But we may see it being hit enough to stop rail traffic and heavy road traffic, if only by swiss-cheesing the decks.
But all bets are off if you get a team of operatives to the important parts of the bridge with a ?hundred kilos? of explosives and knowledge of where to place them...
(IANAE, this may be wrong etc,etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Remagen
King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.
Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.
The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-will-not-pay-tax-on-inheritance-from-the-queen
The first rule of Revanche Club is Let The Other Guy Start The Next One.
https://news.sky.com/story/armenia-says-49-soldiers-killed-as-fighting-breaks-out-with-azerbaijan-12696228
(It's interesting to think how different the world would look today if Russia had just had a few pieces of luck in February around Kyiv. Or the Ukrainians had not had NLAWs...)
However.
If I were a dictator looking to ensure that my order to use battlefield nukes would be carried out, the way I would do it would be to set it up well in advance, while I still had total control, and keep the people carrying out the task in the dark.
For example, Putin could have used the security services to route a battlefield nuke to Ukraine under the guise of "special munitions" all the way back in March. Ordinary soldiers on the ground are told it's a phosphorous bomb or something. Get the bomb in place long in advance of it needing to be used and keep it under wraps using the security services to obscure the paper trail.
Then, when it's time to use it, give the order to fire the "special phosphorous bombs", wink wink. The ordinary soldiers carrying out the order take the special munitions out of storage, attach them to the truck launched firing device, and never know what they're actually launching until it's too late.
This is just speculative fiction, but the point is that there are plenty of ways round the "nobody would ever be nuts enough to fire a nuke" argument. Not telling the knuckle draggers doing the firing what they are actually firing would be one easy way of doing it.
No, seriously.
The other issue is that, presumably, the late Queen's will and inventory valuation will not be published (following the example of her consort). Unlike the rest of us.
- Go all-in on defence along the whole line for at least a couple of weeks: throw everything at it, in the hope that the lines will stall and Ukraine will need to take a pause
- Let the idea settle in Europe that the counteroffensive has run out of steam and we're heading for stalemate
- Declare a ceasefire and make a "generous offer" to withdraw from all areas outside Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts as a prelude to talks on the future of those regions
- Look and sound as reasonable as possible until Western unity on Ukraine cracks
- Negotiate a face-saving deal. Get a few sanctions lifted. Crack down on dissent at home.
- Wait a decade
- Invade Ukraine again
The inheritance tax issue would be on the Queens private assets, which are considerably smaller than the Crown Estate, IIRC.
Amunionion is expensive, very expensive. armies need big stockpiles ready for war, but only need to use a little for tranng in peace time. unfortunately it also has a shelf life, typically 20-25 years i the west, Russia and others often push it out to 30-35 years, but the longer you push it the less effective it becomes and the bigger the chage of a miss-fire.
therefore army's buy some each year and use the oldest for training, but normally still find they have to fire off lots of extra old amunion that is not needed for traning, this is expensive, and amongst other things whereas out the barrels of the guns.
Russia was thought to have 15-48 million artillery shells at the stat of the conflict, and has used maybe 5 million so far, they are unlikely to be at or near the end of that. they might however be thinking of sensible stock management. What's probably happened, is Russia has seed to the to North Korea and Tajikistan, lets swap, you give me 100,000 old shells about to go out of date and we will give you 50,000 fairly new shells that will last another 20 years. Both party's benefit, makes sense all round.
I would love to think this is some indication that Russia is almost out of amnion, but just become it would be nice to think that it does not make it accurate, and it almost certainly is not.
also, Russia has been recruiting men for Tajikistan form late March, nothing new there, perhaps they have stepped up efforts, but its not new. and we should not read too much in to it.
Shows how wrong a far-away observer with no military knowledge can be. But I think I was far from alone, joined even by some who perhaps were in a position to have known better.
It's interesting that the CE income is allocated in fixed proportion to the Sovereign - irrespective of how much it actually is from year to year.
Hosepipe etc bans loom for some ...
Armenia-Azerbaijan is somewhat less straightforward. Both sides have been the bad guys but also have genuine cause for grievance. It really needs a long term negotiated solution.
Charles and all other beneficiaries will pay full inheritance tax on all assets received from the private estate of the Queen.
He will not pay IHT on the Queen's sovereign assets which belonged to the Crown not her personally
As to the rest, most would be untaxed under normal rules. Country houses that are open 25 days a year, significant artworks, are exempt, thanks to Roy Jenkins.
Farmland gets 100% business property relief, and woodlands get a special light regime.
Currently I'm updating our work report style guide.
Of course the reservoirs and aquifers will take time to replenish, but thats mostly just part of the normal cycle.
The election wends on, it doesn't feel from this distance like it has caught great light or hit an overriding theme, but has been a little under the surface, not least because the ongoing, now caretaker, Draghi government has continued with its major work, particularly the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (basically COVID recovery and energy security).
In as much as anything has happened, PD, the main centre-left partner, has lost a little polling ground, primarily to M5S, where Conte has had a decent campaign and is now edging Lega.
Aggregate polling around:
Right 46, Centre-left 28, M5S 13, Centre 7
That still.points to a substantial right majority of 60%+ of seats in both houses.
And if it pertains to a state function it should be handed over to the state.
It's how much is in private trusts that is alkso of interest.
Who can forget the most intelligent person on PB posting as much shite as you did.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/king-charles-iii-and-queen-consort-camilla-arrive-at-st-annes-cathedral-in-belfast-for-service-of-reflection-41984359.html https://twitter.com/BelTel/status/1569696359737081857/photo/1
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/as-summer-turns-to-fall-ula-still-waiting-for-its-be-4-rocket-engines/
"Jeff, where are my engines?"
Edit: and he had to pay for upkeep, heating, etc., for his personal flat. Only the bit pertaining to his duties was tax-free.
You can't seriously claim that a bit of the sea bed making money from wind farms, for instance, is necessary to the performance of the sovereign's duties, especially as only 25% of the income *even now* goes to the sovereign.