The fact they're losing, heavily, is starting to weigh on their shoulders hence the sabre rattling about nuclear war.
Its an empty threat. Like a young child screaming in a temper tantrum, you just need to ride it out, not give in to them.
When Suez happened, I don't recall the world saying that people should go lightly on the UK/France etc because they might get upset and nuke everyone.
When Vietnam happened, I don't recall the world saying that the Vietnamese should go lightly on the French because they might get upset and nuke everyone.
When Vietnam happened a second time, I don't recall the world saying that the Vietnamese should go lightly on the US because they might get upset and nuke everyone.
When Afghanistan happened, I don't recall the world saying that the Afghans should go lightly on the USSR because they might get upset and nuke everyone.
When Afghanistan happened again, I don't recall the world saying that the Afghans should go lightly on the US, French & UK because they might get upset and nuke everyone.
Hmmmmm.....
I am sure you are aware that the USA did use nuclear weapons when Japan did not go lightly on them
There are two important distinguishing factors, State.
First, there was every good reason to think the use of the bomb would bring the war to an immediate end and save many lives, mostly of US Serviceman but probably Japanese too.
It was considered necessary to demonstrate that this thing actually worked and just how devastating it could be.
I don't think either consideration applied in the other cases mentioned above.
For those interested, there is a very good (and long) video that goes through the history of the use of the nukes by the US and how it was very much not necessary to end the war (although was very much about using it to scare the USSR)
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
By pre-announced I didn't mean they said "the Queen is dead". But they did say "concern for the Queen's health" and "peacefully resting" whilst BBC quietly cancelled its schedule and started rolling coverage with lots of OB that afternoon whilst they prepared the studio for later.
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
It seems unlikely this is directly aimed at Truss but it’s still extremely unhelpful for the new government in a week they are about to unveil a suite of economic policies which they won’t call, but nonetheless are, examples of “trickle-down.” https://twitter.com/potus/status/1572218921347866624
Well his inflation reduction act has fallen on its arse, he might as well announce any old shit. Row 14 Joe and his economy randomiser. He's Carter but without the nice bloke bit
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and he could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
Well paid exile in a friendly country would surely be a nice retirement for Putin. He's in his 70s so due to retire soon anyway. NK, Iran and Cuba may not appeal but perhaps Xi could offer him a nice place in Macau. Would remind him of his beloved Sochi. Venezuela has some pretty tropical beaches too.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
By pre-announced I didn't mean they said "the Queen is dead". But they did say "concern for the Queen's health" and "peacefully resting" whilst BBC quietly cancelled its schedule and started rolling coverage with lots of OB that afternoon whilst they prepared the studio for later.
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
None of it is inconsistent with her being near death, and dying at the actual time when they said she died.
Government looks like having second thoughts on Channel 4 privatisation. To me , this is the ideal type of organisation that should be a workers cooperative. - ie not essential but good to have as many different models in a public type shared service.
Very sensible new SoS for DCMS on R4 this morning. Is she a known loon because she didn't sound it.
The Royal Standard is never lowered (love that ) Princess Charlotte is the BOSS Becks is fundamentally a very nice man Phil Schofield is just a typical celebrity -nothing more nothing less Operation Unicorn was the other plan when the Queen died The US president gets placed behind Poland in funerals The wearing of Military uniform is inversely proportional to the conflicts served in (by Royals)
Pipes move up from awesome to legendary Britain is still big dog
We still have enough mounted cavalry to drive the Russians out of Ukraine.
Row numbers in double figures really suit the USA
Their own fault. They should get front row seats by just being known as America.
Then, alphabetic order is your friend. Make America Great Again....that's all it took.
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and Putin could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
It's worth noting that Ukraine destroyed earlier attempts at fake referenda in the occupied areas with a combination of local sabotage and military strikes.
Why are they fake?
Plus I like the idea of military strikes on attempted referendums.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
By pre-announced I didn't mean they said "the Queen is dead". But they did say "concern for the Queen's health" and "peacefully resting" whilst BBC quietly cancelled its schedule and started rolling coverage with lots of OB that afternoon whilst they prepared the studio for later.
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
No, not just you, it was obvious she was dead or about to die. Sorry, ive already been involved in a lengthy 'discussion' over whether the news was given to anyone before 4.30pm. I'm firmly of the opinion it was heavily telegraphed but obviously not said.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
It was picked up on this site that it had happened minutes before the lunchtime announcement was even made. The commotion in the Commons during the headline energy plan debate, there was only one story big enough to disturb that. London Bridge was repeatedly mentioned here, and not just by usual suspects, minutes before anything was officially said by the doctors message being read out just from the body language on the front benches.
She was dead then. Or in code, "peacefully resting" as you say.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and there are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots too, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and Putin could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
It's worth noting that Ukraine destroyed earlier attempts at fake referenda in the occupied areas with a combination of local sabotage and military strikes.
Why are they fake?
Plus I like the idea of military strikes on attempted referendums.
My working assumption is they'll be rigged. Perhaps I'm wrong..
Take the Koh-i-Noor and other diamonds within the Crown Jewels. It's pretty easy to admit most of that was taken at the point of a gun, even if officially they were signed over or gifted to us, and it's pretty easy to say they should go back to the countries we took them from.
As for her position on abolition, I only quote Eric Williams: "British historians write almost as if Britain had introduced Negro slavery solely for the satisfaction of abolishing it.”
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
By pre-announced I didn't mean they said "the Queen is dead". But they did say "concern for the Queen's health" and "peacefully resting" whilst BBC quietly cancelled its schedule and started rolling coverage with lots of OB that afternoon whilst they prepared the studio for later.
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
No, not just you, it was obvious she was dead or about to die. Sorry, ive already been involved in a lengthy 'discussion' over whether the news was given to anyone before 4.30pm. I'm firmly of the opinion it was heavily telegraphed but obviously not said.
For Princess Di they said she was "gravely ill" and I thought ah then she'll be fine, until a doctor friend of mine said nope, gravely is she's unrevivable.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
It was picked up on this site that it had happened minutes before the lunchtime announcement was even made. The commotion in the Commons during the headline energy plan debate, there was only one story big enough to disturb that. London Bridge was repeatedly mentioned here, and not just by usual suspects, minutes before anything was officially said by the doctors message being read out just from the body language on the front benches.
She was dead then. Or in code, "peacefully resting" as you say.
The Royal Standard is never lowered (love that ) Princess Charlotte is the BOSS Becks is fundamentally a very nice man Phil Schofield is just a typical celebrity -nothing more nothing less Operation Unicorn was the other plan when the Queen died The US president gets placed behind Poland in funerals The wearing of Military uniform is inversely proportional to the conflicts served in (by Royals)
Pipes move up from awesome to legendary Britain is still big dog
We still have enough mounted cavalry to drive the Russians out of Ukraine.
Row numbers in double figures really suit the USA
Their own fault. They should get front row seats by just being known as America.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
It was picked up on this site that it had happened minutes before the lunchtime announcement was even made. The commotion in the Commons during the headline energy plan debate, there was only one story big enough to disturb that. London Bridge was repeatedly mentioned here, and not just by usual suspects, minutes before anything was officially said by the doctors message being read out just from the body language on the front benches.
She was dead then. Or in code, "peacefully resting" as you say.
So there it was. The much attacked "Scott n'Paste" got the scoop.
I'm not sure she was dead, GF was pretty sure it was code for (insert medical term for EoL drugs here).
The helicopter left Windsor before 7am to grab Charles, and it was only later that the other Royals started moving. So they noticed during the night and she deteriorated during the day.
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and he could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
He reportedly has a deep fear of suffering Gaddafi's particular fate....the "sodomized with a bayonet" bit.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and they are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
Do you think that a referendum held next week, at a few days’ notice, in an area that’s currently under the control of the Russian military, and from which Ukranians have been forcibly deported, could possibly be anything approaching ‘free and fair’ in any sense of those words?
~250k saw the Queen lying in state, that seems a lot less than I would have guessed given what was it 4-5 days / 24hrs a day / 12 hour queues.
The length of the queue is a red herring imo. Instead look at the rate at which people passed the coffin. Back of an envelope:-
2 sides of 15 each side take 30 seconds to clear, so, 2 x 15 x 2 = 60 people a minute 60 x 50 minutes per hour (to allow for guard changes) x 23 hours a day (cleaning) = 60 x 50 x 23 = 69,000 a day; call it 70,000 to make the sums easier How long was it open for? Five days: 5 x 70,000 = 350,000 Four and a half days: 4.5 x 70,000 = 315,000 Plus Philip and Holly = 315,002.
What we need to be able to calculate is the 'natural' maximum capacity of a 4-day lying-in-state event.
It will never be longer due to the need for the funeral, and it was already open 23 hours a day, so the options you have are to remove the cleaning, speed up the guard changes (and lose some of the ceremony) or frogmarch people past it quickly.
Probably 350-400k is the maximum. So I'm not sure how DCMS ever expected a million to get through.
Maybe they thought people wouldn't pause?
They pulled a number out of their arse, not bothering to check it with any kind of reality?
Does that mean the 200k who saw the queen mum is also debatable? Can't imagine only 25% more would see HMQ.
No, it means that if you limit the number of people going past a coffin to those that can see it and pass at a slow pace, there is a ceiling to how many people can do so.
If you replaced the two lines we saw with two groups packed together, 15 deep on each side, with no space to breathe, then you could get a lot more people through.
I think the trick would have been to have three lines, drawn in a triangle around the coffin, and people would walk along one of those lines. I
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
I remind the forum that I told you all the Queen was about to croak it because I was myself informed of this, by a super posho person, over oysters at Randall & Aubin
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
By pre-announced I didn't mean they said "the Queen is dead". But they did say "concern for the Queen's health" and "peacefully resting" whilst BBC quietly cancelled its schedule and started rolling coverage with lots of OB that afternoon whilst they prepared the studio for later.
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
No, not just you, it was obvious she was dead or about to die. Sorry, ive already been involved in a lengthy 'discussion' over whether the news was given to anyone before 4.30pm. I'm firmly of the opinion it was heavily telegraphed but obviously not said.
For Princess Di they said she was "gravely ill" and I thought ah then she'll be fine, until a doctor friend of mine said nope, gravely is she's unrevivable.
Buckingham Palace issued that short statement that the Queen was under medical supervision and was "comfortable". The latter word in that context clearly being that she was dead.
She saw off that lying cad Johnson, having been clinging on for the last few years then months to see the back of him. Then almost as soon as she shook hands with Mistress Truss she appears to have gone into a very rapid decline.
I know that very old people do have this ability to fight on and then largely switch themselves off, and that does seem to be what has happened here. No wonder Bonzo looked so unhappy having been blocked from queue-jumping in the Abbey. His removal from office was literally the Queen's dying wish...
They're rather telegraphing their next moves aren't they? Reminds me of all the choreography involving jets flying to and from Siberian nuclear hideouts back in the spring.
Some mentioned a few days ago that somewhere in the depths of the Kremlin there's a brainstorming session with "how do we get ourselves out of this" on a whiteboard. Clearly in that workshop the decision was:
- A couple of referendums to create facts on the ground. That seemed to work in 2014 - One more round of nuclear blackmail. The gas thing didn't work but we know the West are scared of nukes - In the meantime do a bit of good-cop bad-cop and get Erdogan to let the world know we're ready to talk with Ukraine - We then announce a ceasefire and a proposal to retain the whole of Donetsk and Luhansk along with Kherson (we can give that one away later) - Rest of the world will jump at the opportunity to bring this one to a conclusion and get their gas back
That sounds plausible
Unfortunately I suspect they’ve folded a small nuclear strike into that scenario, to frighten the shit out of everyone. Nothing apocalyptic, but nuclear, yes
Nah. India and China have firmly told them that if they use nukes, they are alone in a very cold world.
Diplomatic pressure on India and China to stop buying oil and gas for example would be immense. Every means of isolation not fully used would be. SWIFT ends, any loopholes, sanctions busters come down on like a ton of bricks. Then just let Russia collapse. Meanwhile, supply Ukraine with every piece of kit they want that isn't a nuke.
That’s all very rational, I fear we are not dealing with a rational actor
Look at it from Putin’s perspective. You’re getting your arse kicked in a disastrous war. This is a war YOU chose, for no obvious reason and with no obvious goal. 50,000 of your soldiers have died. You’ve crippled Russia’s economy
There is no way you can win, with conventional forces now. Even mobilization will take many months
Meanwhile you are losing ground, and you’re heading for humiliating defeat, even as your biggest critics in Moscow are hawks who want MORE war
The end is nigh. When you are defeated you will probably be toppled like Gadaffi, as will everyone around you. The entire elite. Lynched
So: roll the nuclear dice. Change the game. Terrify the world
@Leon - That is sadly a rational analysis. I hope you are wrong.
On a more lighter topic I wanted to ask you advice. My travel is mainly EU based and I haven't needed to worry about return flights or accommodation as being a prerequisite for getting into any country (proof you intend to leave) so don't always book stuff. It didn't cross my mind that this is no longer true and luckily I have got away with it. I have not been challenged, but my cousin was recently when travelling to Madeira of all places.
I get the impression that you take a very flexible attitude to your travel arrangements and travel a lot outside of the EU. You seemed to be making the arrangements on the fly when visiting ex Soviet states recently. Do you have issues with this and how do you get around it.
I’ve never been asked and it’s never been a problem
One thing I noted on my recent flights into Portugal and out of Spain is that border officials have stopped looking through the pages of my passport to check if I’ve overstepped my EU 90 day travel allowance. They just stamp the passport, shrug, and off you go. Saves a lot of time
However I did also have to use e-gates at both frontiers
Are the e-gates now so sophisticated they are compiling EU-wide data on every British tourist in the EU? So your comings and goings are logged in Brussels?
Or have they simply abandoned any attempt to track us, as too slow and difficult?
The issue wasn't the 90 days* but that you can prove you are leaving. He was asked to show he had a return flight (which he could do). I have never been asked that and on many occasions I would not have been able to do so. I assume this is more common when travelling elsewhere (flights to USA?) and guessed you had come across it and how you get around it. I note from the internet people book flights they have no intention of taking and cancel them or even use mocked up tickets. Sounds risky to me.
* He actually endured more than just having to prove he was leaving. He was lucky he had tickets as he has a place there and often would not have booked the flight home before arriving. However when shown the tickets the border official told him he would be exceeding his 90 day allowance. Thus followed a stand up, 'No I won't', Yes you will' and at which point he had to wait for everyone to go through before people got out their calculators. At this point they said they would let him off this time, which should be interpreted as 'Sorry we got it wrong'. Why can officials never admit they got something wrong?
Every trip I've been on in the EU, they ask i) what I am doing ii) where exactly I am going iii) how I am getting there, iv) when am I leaving. Never been asked for 'proof' though because I suppose they were happy with my answers. Not quite as annoying as the US border guard.
I've not been asked on any of my trips - and on my last trip (Rome in July) I was using one of the machines, so there was no-one to ask me.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
Massive stroke during the morning?
That seems likely enough, or similar sort of catastrophic development
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and there are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots too, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
The Russians seem to have no problem with levelling the towns and villages of ethnic Russians and sending their men folk off as cannon fodder. This might have torn the veil from some eyes out there.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
By pre-announced I didn't mean they said "the Queen is dead". But they did say "concern for the Queen's health" and "peacefully resting" whilst BBC quietly cancelled its schedule and started rolling coverage with lots of OB that afternoon whilst they prepared the studio for later.
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
No, not just you, it was obvious she was dead or about to die. Sorry, ive already been involved in a lengthy 'discussion' over whether the news was given to anyone before 4.30pm. I'm firmly of the opinion it was heavily telegraphed but obviously not said.
For Princess Di they said she was "gravely ill" and I thought ah then she'll be fine, until a doctor friend of mine said nope, gravely is she's unrevivable.
Buckingham Palace issued that short statement that the Queen was under medical supervision and was "comfortable". The latter word in that context clearly being that she was dead.
She saw off that lying cad Johnson, having been clinging on for the last few years then months to see the back of him. Then almost as soon as she shook hands with Mistress Truss she appears to have gone into a very rapid decline.
I know that very old people do have this ability to fight on and then largely switch themselves off, and that does seem to be what has happened here. No wonder Bonzo looked so unhappy having been blocked from queue-jumping in the Abbey. His removal from office was literally the Queen's dying wish...
No, despite what you assert it wasn't clear she was dead when that statement was given.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
By pre-announced I didn't mean they said "the Queen is dead". But they did say "concern for the Queen's health" and "peacefully resting" whilst BBC quietly cancelled its schedule and started rolling coverage with lots of OB that afternoon whilst they prepared the studio for later.
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
No, not just you, it was obvious she was dead or about to die. Sorry, ive already been involved in a lengthy 'discussion' over whether the news was given to anyone before 4.30pm. I'm firmly of the opinion it was heavily telegraphed but obviously not said.
For Princess Di they said she was "gravely ill" and I thought ah then she'll be fine, until a doctor friend of mine said nope, gravely is she's unrevivable.
That was the same phrase they’d used about Ayrton Senna, three years before Diana and also after a traumatic injury.
In both cases, it became clear that that phrase meant that life support was being kept on until the family could be informed.
Russia’s former president Dmitry Medvedev says if Ukraine’s breakaway regions vote to join Russia, it will allow Moscow to utilise its full military capability in the Donbass region Follow our live coverage:👇
Russia will give itself the option of all-out war next spring, via this legal route - ‘Russia itself is being attacked’
In the interim they will halt the Ukrainian advance by dropping a small nuke, on Snake Island or wherever. Somewhere that the fall-out can be restricted (so not the Zap plant)
This could easily work. The west will tell Ukraine to back down, they might back down anyway. The world goes into a brutal new Cold War, Russia holds onto its “gains” in Ukraine at a terrible price. Putin can claim some gargoyle of a victory
The world goes on. Sighs of relief are heard. We get used to the new reality
Dropping a "small nuke" brings an immediate and devastating response from the US.
Which is what? The USA won’t start all-out war over Ukraine
They would just do more of the same. Sanctions, arms to Kyiv, etc
That won’t horrify Putin. The more he can paint this war as existential - Russia v NATO - the likelier his survival
Russia using nukes wouldn't be in response to anything other than Putin being made to look a failure.
The Russians are scrupulously not being invaded. Ukraine has fought this war with one hand tied behind its back, using NATO hand-me-downs. Using nukes won't make Russia a winner. The only thing under threat is Putin's place in the pantheon of Russian greats.
There is no justifiable need to use nukes. It would mean anyone complicit in that decision would be hounded to the ends of the earth as war criminals. And that to end of their lives.
It would be a bigger moment than 9/11.
You are hopecasting. You are not making predictions, you are stating fears and aspirations
Look at what they are doing today. Organising referendums and paving the legal road to mobilisation
Luhansk and Donbass will vote to become Russia. Once they are Russia then any Ukrainain forces there will be "invading Russia" = all out war.
Russia does not have the conventional forces for all out war, and mobilisation will take months to impact that
Ergo, they have to stop the Ukrainian/NATO "invasion of Russia" now, and with other means, to save Russia
Presumably Western intelligence would pretty quickly pick up movements of propulsion systems suitable for tactical battlefield nukes. I could see them being dusted down and wheeled in the direction of the border to put the shits up everyone. Let's keep an eye out.
Alternative would be from a submarine in the Black Sea, and they seem to be moving them out of Crimea towards Novorossiysk. Even then I would imagine intel will find its way to the CIA or other agencies fairly quickly.
One of the destabilising features of tactical nukes always was that they were often employed in mixed use systems. So, very often the only difference was the warhead. Which is one of the reasons that the US military wanted rid of them.
I meant - fitted to weapons that would often have a conventional warhead as another option.
So that cruise missile coming at you - is it a nuke or just a bit rude?
The torpedo in the water - end times or a bad day?
And so on.
In the current case, I think a number of the missiles the Russians have launched at Ukraine have a nuclear option. The anti-surface ship missiles re-purposed for ground attack, for example.
" One of the destabilising features of tactical nukes always was that they were often employed in mixed use systems. "
Eh ? Have I missed something, have tactical nukes ever been used in anger ?
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and he could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
Well paid exile in a friendly country would surely be a nice retirement for Putin. He's in his 70s so due to retire soon anyway. NK, Iran and Cuba may not appeal but perhaps Xi could offer him a nice place in Macau. Would remind him of his beloved Sochi. Venezuela has some pretty tropical beaches too.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
It was picked up on this site that it had happened minutes before the lunchtime announcement was even made. The commotion in the Commons during the headline energy plan debate, there was only one story big enough to disturb that. London Bridge was repeatedly mentioned here, and not just by usual suspects, minutes before anything was officially said by the doctors message being read out just from the body language on the front benches.
She was dead then. Or in code, "peacefully resting" as you say.
I remember that discussion. Having "bone cancer" is not the same as having just died of bone cancer or anything else. Same with Leon who very loudly tried to claim credit for calling it. The very first reports of (a) the commotion in the Commons and (b) that it looks like London Bridge were both Scott.
I haven't been on Political Betting for ages, but I just thought I ought to pop in and remind people that it was approximately ten years and four hours ago that I shook hands with Prince (as he then was) Charles and Camilla in the town centre in Croydon. I didn't know in advance that they were going to be there, and I just happened to arrive at the location about 5 minutes before they did.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and there are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots too, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
The Russians seem to have no problem with levelling the towns and villages of ethnic Russians and sending their men folk off as cannon fodder. This might have torn the veil from some eyes out there.
We need polling. And LibDem bar charts.
We need a UN sponsored and monitored plebiscite, agreed as part of a peace settlement, and undertaken on the condition of complete Russian military withdrawal from the occupied territories.
They're rather telegraphing their next moves aren't they? Reminds me of all the choreography involving jets flying to and from Siberian nuclear hideouts back in the spring.
Some mentioned a few days ago that somewhere in the depths of the Kremlin there's a brainstorming session with "how do we get ourselves out of this" on a whiteboard. Clearly in that workshop the decision was:
- A couple of referendums to create facts on the ground. That seemed to work in 2014 - One more round of nuclear blackmail. The gas thing didn't work but we know the West are scared of nukes - In the meantime do a bit of good-cop bad-cop and get Erdogan to let the world know we're ready to talk with Ukraine - We then announce a ceasefire and a proposal to retain the whole of Donetsk and Luhansk along with Kherson (we can give that one away later) - Rest of the world will jump at the opportunity to bring this one to a conclusion and get their gas back
That sounds plausible
Unfortunately I suspect they’ve folded a small nuclear strike into that scenario, to frighten the shit out of everyone. Nothing apocalyptic, but nuclear, yes
Nah. India and China have firmly told them that if they use nukes, they are alone in a very cold world.
Diplomatic pressure on India and China to stop buying oil and gas for example would be immense. Every means of isolation not fully used would be. SWIFT ends, any loopholes, sanctions busters come down on like a ton of bricks. Then just let Russia collapse. Meanwhile, supply Ukraine with every piece of kit they want that isn't a nuke.
That’s all very rational, I fear we are not dealing with a rational actor
Look at it from Putin’s perspective. You’re getting your arse kicked in a disastrous war. This is a war YOU chose, for no obvious reason and with no obvious goal. 50,000 of your soldiers have died. You’ve crippled Russia’s economy
There is no way you can win, with conventional forces now. Even mobilization will take many months
Meanwhile you are losing ground, and you’re heading for humiliating defeat, even as your biggest critics in Moscow are hawks who want MORE war
The end is nigh. When you are defeated you will probably be toppled like Gadaffi, as will everyone around you. The entire elite. Lynched
So: roll the nuclear dice. Change the game. Terrify the world
@Leon - That is sadly a rational analysis. I hope you are wrong.
On a more lighter topic I wanted to ask you advice. My travel is mainly EU based and I haven't needed to worry about return flights or accommodation as being a prerequisite for getting into any country (proof you intend to leave) so don't always book stuff. It didn't cross my mind that this is no longer true and luckily I have got away with it. I have not been challenged, but my cousin was recently when travelling to Madeira of all places.
I get the impression that you take a very flexible attitude to your travel arrangements and travel a lot outside of the EU. You seemed to be making the arrangements on the fly when visiting ex Soviet states recently. Do you have issues with this and how do you get around it.
I’ve never been asked and it’s never been a problem
One thing I noted on my recent flights into Portugal and out of Spain is that border officials have stopped looking through the pages of my passport to check if I’ve overstepped my EU 90 day travel allowance. They just stamp the passport, shrug, and off you go. Saves a lot of time
However I did also have to use e-gates at both frontiers
Are the e-gates now so sophisticated they are compiling EU-wide data on every British tourist in the EU? So your comings and goings are logged in Brussels?
Or have they simply abandoned any attempt to track us, as too slow and difficult?
The issue wasn't the 90 days* but that you can prove you are leaving. He was asked to show he had a return flight (which he could do). I have never been asked that and on many occasions I would not have been able to do so. I assume this is more common when travelling elsewhere (flights to USA?) and guessed you had come across it and how you get around it. I note from the internet people book flights they have no intention of taking and cancel them or even use mocked up tickets. Sounds risky to me.
* He actually endured more than just having to prove he was leaving. He was lucky he had tickets as he has a place there and often would not have booked the flight home before arriving. However when shown the tickets the border official told him he would be exceeding his 90 day allowance. Thus followed a stand up, 'No I won't', Yes you will' and at which point he had to wait for everyone to go through before people got out their calculators. At this point they said they would let him off this time, which should be interpreted as 'Sorry we got it wrong'. Why can officials never admit they got something wrong?
Every trip I've been on in the EU, they ask i) what I am doing ii) where exactly I am going iii) how I am getting there, iv) when am I leaving. Never been asked for 'proof' though because I suppose they were happy with my answers. Not quite as annoying as the US border guard.
I've not been asked on any of my trips - and on my last trip (Rome in July) I was using one of the machines, so there was no-one to ask me.
My 16 year old daughter go asked on a school trip to Austria - how many T-Shirts do you have ? At least she thought she got asked that until I said "are you sure it was not how many teachers you had?" - at least her stumbling answer of about 7 probably seemed ok to the border guard on the teacher front as well
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Everything is stupid and fake for you, Barty, if it doesn't play to what you want.
Re. earlier comments here, Russia already has conscription.
There are forces opposed to the Russian government that want this war to escalate, to nuclear war if they can achieve that. They are jumping for joy at the Zap plant being hit. It's unlikely to be Russian forces shelling that plant. Why would they do it? (OK I am sure a reason could be cobbled together - there's your task for this afternoon, Bart - but it doesn't seem very likely.) Wouldn't surprise me if other nuclear plants get hit too - ones in Russia. There was talk of that in relation to Chechnya some time around 1999.
Also re. earlier comments, as far as I'm aware both the US and Britain continue to import Russian uranium.
Take the Koh-i-Noor and other diamonds within the Crown Jewels. It's pretty easy to admit most of that was taken at the point of a gun, even if officially they were signed over or gifted to us, and it's pretty easy to say they should go back to the countries we took them from.
Four different countries want the Koh-i-Noor so it's certainly not easy, and it's not obvious why the claim of any previous dynasties should supersede its current ownership.
One thing that doesn't seem to have been discussed about Russia potentially using nuclear weapons against Ukraine is the effect on proliferation. If a country uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression and the response isn't enough to give non-nuclear nations confidence it won't happen again, I suspect you'd see a massive uptick in nuclear programs.
Poland would be a key contender - clearly they have the capability to obtain nuclear weapons (big enough economy, rich(ish) and have domestic nuclear power. They also feel threatened by Russia. If you're confident only conventional weapons will be used to attack you, then you can easily rely on NATO (or other major power guarantors). If it goes nuclear, your conventional military is suddenly not so much of a deterrent and your backers are less likely to want to get into a nuclear confrontation. So having your own weapons suddenly becomes much more important.
Who else might go nuclear? Turkey? Taiwan? Japan? South Korea?
I'd have thought the Baltic states probably lack the capability.
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and Putin could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
It's worth noting that Ukraine destroyed earlier attempts at fake referenda in the occupied areas with a combination of local sabotage and military strikes.
Why are they fake?
Plus I like the idea of military strikes on attempted referendums.
Something between 900k and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens, many of whom should be in the Electorate, have been deported to Russia - for a start. That is the US State Department estimate.
How to you hold a referendum when a big chunk of the Electorate has been taken out of the country by the invading forces?
Plus all the people driven out between 2014 and now.
I’m trying to think of a way out of this self-created mess, for Putin, that does NOT involve massive escalation
I can’t find one. If he withdraws that’s a defeat and he will be Gaddafi’d. If he carries on as is, Russia will lose slowly, and the endpoint is the same for him, only worse as the Russian army will be minced further
He’s bleeding out. Retreat is not an option. He has to attack. That means mobilisation or WMD (of some kind) - or both
"The UK is weighing up whether to attend a new European political "club of nations" next month.
The first meeting of the "European Political Community" is due to be held in Prague in early October.
Downing Street wants to see more detail on the summit before Prime Minister Liz Truss commits to attending it and no final decision has been made."
It has Europe in the name so no 10 will turn down the invitation . And Truss is a puppet of the ERG who will implode if she dared attend anything that looked like co-operating with EU countries .
The main issue is that it would continue the situation of a dominant inner circle that can force the outer circle into compliance. If a new broader forum is needed, it should include Canada and the US so no bloc has a majority of votes.
The UK is an unusually excellent position with Europe (as a continent) right now: we've led on Ukraine, and we've been right.
What we need to do is to stiffen the resolve of other European countries, and to ensure arms and ammunition factories are working, and that the flow of munitions to Ukraine continues.
So long as this "club" has no power (i.e. it is not an organization to which members are treaty bound), then we should go, and we should use it to bang on the table to make sure that everyone realises that it is in Europe's interest for Russia to be driven out of Ukraine.
They're rather telegraphing their next moves aren't they? Reminds me of all the choreography involving jets flying to and from Siberian nuclear hideouts back in the spring.
Some mentioned a few days ago that somewhere in the depths of the Kremlin there's a brainstorming session with "how do we get ourselves out of this" on a whiteboard. Clearly in that workshop the decision was:
- A couple of referendums to create facts on the ground. That seemed to work in 2014 - One more round of nuclear blackmail. The gas thing didn't work but we know the West are scared of nukes - In the meantime do a bit of good-cop bad-cop and get Erdogan to let the world know we're ready to talk with Ukraine - We then announce a ceasefire and a proposal to retain the whole of Donetsk and Luhansk along with Kherson (we can give that one away later) - Rest of the world will jump at the opportunity to bring this one to a conclusion and get their gas back
That sounds plausible
Unfortunately I suspect they’ve folded a small nuclear strike into that scenario, to frighten the shit out of everyone. Nothing apocalyptic, but nuclear, yes
Nah. India and China have firmly told them that if they use nukes, they are alone in a very cold world.
Diplomatic pressure on India and China to stop buying oil and gas for example would be immense. Every means of isolation not fully used would be. SWIFT ends, any loopholes, sanctions busters come down on like a ton of bricks. Then just let Russia collapse. Meanwhile, supply Ukraine with every piece of kit they want that isn't a nuke.
That’s all very rational, I fear we are not dealing with a rational actor
Look at it from Putin’s perspective. You’re getting your arse kicked in a disastrous war. This is a war YOU chose, for no obvious reason and with no obvious goal. 50,000 of your soldiers have died. You’ve crippled Russia’s economy
There is no way you can win, with conventional forces now. Even mobilization will take many months
Meanwhile you are losing ground, and you’re heading for humiliating defeat, even as your biggest critics in Moscow are hawks who want MORE war
The end is nigh. When you are defeated you will probably be toppled like Gadaffi, as will everyone around you. The entire elite. Lynched
So: roll the nuclear dice. Change the game. Terrify the world
@Leon - That is sadly a rational analysis. I hope you are wrong.
On a more lighter topic I wanted to ask you advice. My travel is mainly EU based and I haven't needed to worry about return flights or accommodation as being a prerequisite for getting into any country (proof you intend to leave) so don't always book stuff. It didn't cross my mind that this is no longer true and luckily I have got away with it. I have not been challenged, but my cousin was recently when travelling to Madeira of all places.
I get the impression that you take a very flexible attitude to your travel arrangements and travel a lot outside of the EU. You seemed to be making the arrangements on the fly when visiting ex Soviet states recently. Do you have issues with this and how do you get around it.
I’ve never been asked and it’s never been a problem
One thing I noted on my recent flights into Portugal and out of Spain is that border officials have stopped looking through the pages of my passport to check if I’ve overstepped my EU 90 day travel allowance. They just stamp the passport, shrug, and off you go. Saves a lot of time
However I did also have to use e-gates at both frontiers
Are the e-gates now so sophisticated they are compiling EU-wide data on every British tourist in the EU? So your comings and goings are logged in Brussels?
Or have they simply abandoned any attempt to track us, as too slow and difficult?
The issue wasn't the 90 days* but that you can prove you are leaving. He was asked to show he had a return flight (which he could do). I have never been asked that and on many occasions I would not have been able to do so. I assume this is more common when travelling elsewhere (flights to USA?) and guessed you had come across it and how you get around it. I note from the internet people book flights they have no intention of taking and cancel them or even use mocked up tickets. Sounds risky to me.
* He actually endured more than just having to prove he was leaving. He was lucky he had tickets as he has a place there and often would not have booked the flight home before arriving. However when shown the tickets the border official told him he would be exceeding his 90 day allowance. Thus followed a stand up, 'No I won't', Yes you will' and at which point he had to wait for everyone to go through before people got out their calculators. At this point they said they would let him off this time, which should be interpreted as 'Sorry we got it wrong'. Why can officials never admit they got something wrong?
Every trip I've been on in the EU, they ask i) what I am doing ii) where exactly I am going iii) how I am getting there, iv) when am I leaving. Never been asked for 'proof' though because I suppose they were happy with my answers. Not quite as annoying as the US border guard.
I've not been asked on any of my trips - and on my last trip (Rome in July) I was using one of the machines, so there was no-one to ask me.
I transferred planes at the much delayed and expensive new Berlin Brandenberg airport on Friday. Passport queue was 45 minutes - anyone not an EU Schengen resident had to be manually checked in, even those from EM member Romania where my flight originated.
Ze German border guards were extremely thorough. Checking that everyone could prove a valid reason for travel, accommodation, funds, a return ticket. Romanian student in front of me had to show accreditation for the course he was doing. I had to show my boarding card for my onward flight.
Entertainingly it was the same 40 minutes later on the way out. Where had I come from. Where was I going. What was the purpose of my 40 minutes in Germany? Even without Brexit, we would have been stuck in that. And once their new Schengen biometrics faff starts the queues will be even longer for your first visit as you have fingerprints done and an iris scan and an anal probe.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and they are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
Do you think that a referendum held next week, at a few days’ notice, in an area that’s currently under the control of the Russian military, and from which Ukranians have been forcibly deported, could possibly be anything approaching ‘free and fair’ in any sense of those words?
No I absolutely don't. Its clear this is a brutal, evil and completely illegal annexation. Its just very depressing nobody ever bothered to ask the people who live in these regions on Russia's borders what they want.
I'm guessing they would vote decisively in favour of staying with Ukraine, but I don't know the territory.
One thing that doesn't seem to have been discussed about Russia potentially using nuclear weapons against Ukraine is the effect on proliferation. If a country uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression and the response isn't enough to give non-nuclear nations confidence it won't happen again, I suspect you'd see a massive uptick in nuclear programs.
Poland would be a key contender - clearly they have the capability to obtain nuclear weapons (big enough economy, rich(ish) and have domestic nuclear power. They also feel threatened by Russia. If you're confident only conventional weapons will be used to attack you, then you can easily rely on NATO (or other major power guarantors). If it goes nuclear, your conventional military is suddenly not so much of a deterrent and your backers are less likely to want to get into a nuclear confrontation. So having your own weapons suddenly becomes much more important.
Who else might go nuclear? Turkey? Taiwan? Japan? South Korea?
I'd have thought the Baltic states probably lack the capability.
Japan and South Korea can both go nuclear in hours. So it is said. They have the capability in place. You can understand why
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
It was picked up on this site that it had happened minutes before the lunchtime announcement was even made. The commotion in the Commons during the headline energy plan debate, there was only one story big enough to disturb that. London Bridge was repeatedly mentioned here, and not just by usual suspects, minutes before anything was officially said by the doctors message being read out just from the body language on the front benches.
She was dead then. Or in code, "peacefully resting" as you say.
I remember that discussion. Having "bone cancer" is not the same as having just died of bone cancer or anything else. Same with Leon who very loudly tried to claim credit for calling it. The very first reports of (a) the commotion in the Commons and (b) that it looks like London Bridge were both Scott.
I correctly identified her malaise (despite a "correction" from @Foxy saying it was obviously osteoporosis). I didn't name the time and place but clearly such a prognosis has only one, imminent outcome.
Edit: it's worth quoting Foxy's response to my "she's got bone cancer" comment in full:
"I think osteoporosis of the spine with crush fractures. She has become noticeably shorter and more hunched. Really quite painful to travel."
Er no or maybe, but bone cancer it was.
On the day I am happy to agree Scott called it first.
I’m trying to think of a way out of this self-created mess, for Putin, that does NOT involve massive escalation
I can’t find one. If he withdraws that’s a defeat and he will be Gaddafi’d. If he carries on as is, Russia will lose slowly, and the endpoint is the same for him, only worse as the Russian army will be minced further
He’s bleeding out. Retreat is not an option. He has to attack. That means mobilisation or WMD (of some kind) - or both
Putin could consolidate one of the two new 'republics' claim a partial victory, keep Crimea and let the other one remain a disputed battleground undermining Ukraine.
Then he sits back and waits for Trump to give him the rest on a plate in 2024.
One thing that doesn't seem to have been discussed about Russia potentially using nuclear weapons against Ukraine is the effect on proliferation. If a country uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression and the response isn't enough to give non-nuclear nations confidence it won't happen again, I suspect you'd see a massive uptick in nuclear programs.
Poland would be a key contender - clearly they have the capability to obtain nuclear weapons (big enough economy, rich(ish) and have domestic nuclear power. They also feel threatened by Russia. If you're confident only conventional weapons will be used to attack you, then you can easily rely on NATO (or other major power guarantors). If it goes nuclear, your conventional military is suddenly not so much of a deterrent and your backers are less likely to want to get into a nuclear confrontation. So having your own weapons suddenly becomes much more important.
Who else might go nuclear? Turkey? Taiwan? Japan? South Korea?
I'd have thought the Baltic states probably lack the capability.
If the NPT really does fully break down, then nuclear weapons may become just another traded commodity. At which point the Baltics have a number of friendly potential suppliers.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and they are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
Do you think that a referendum held next week, at a few days’ notice, in an area that’s currently under the control of the Russian military, and from which Ukranians have been forcibly deported, could possibly be anything approaching ‘free and fair’ in any sense of those words?
No I absolutely don't. Its clear this is a brutal, evil and completely illegal annexation. Its just very depressing nobody ever bothered to ask the people who live in these regions on Russia's borders what they want.
I'm guessing they would vote decisively in favour of staying with Ukraine, but I don't know the territory.
The people who ‘live’ there now, are a very different group of people to those that lived there before the Russian army invaded. Many of those Ukranians who lived there before, were forcibly robbed of their property and deported to servitude in Russia.
So no, a referendum of people there right now is totally inappropriate - which is exactly why the enemy is proposing it.
Rather like ‘no fly zone’, it’s something that can be made to sound reasonable at first glance, while meaning something very different in practice.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
By pre-announced I didn't mean they said "the Queen is dead". But they did say "concern for the Queen's health" and "peacefully resting" whilst BBC quietly cancelled its schedule and started rolling coverage with lots of OB that afternoon whilst they prepared the studio for later.
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
No, not just you, it was obvious she was dead or about to die. Sorry, ive already been involved in a lengthy 'discussion' over whether the news was given to anyone before 4.30pm. I'm firmly of the opinion it was heavily telegraphed but obviously not said.
For Princess Di they said she was "gravely ill" and I thought ah then she'll be fine, until a doctor friend of mine said nope, gravely is she's unrevivable.
Buckingham Palace issued that short statement that the Queen was under medical supervision and was "comfortable". The latter word in that context clearly being that she was dead.
She saw off that lying cad Johnson, having been clinging on for the last few years then months to see the back of him. Then almost as soon as she shook hands with Mistress Truss she appears to have gone into a very rapid decline.
I know that very old people do have this ability to fight on and then largely switch themselves off, and that does seem to be what has happened here. No wonder Bonzo looked so unhappy having been blocked from queue-jumping in the Abbey. His removal from office was literally the Queen's dying wish...
No, despite what you assert it wasn't clear she was dead when that statement was given.
Indeed. The BBC suspend all programming and go to rolling news exclusively about the Queen because she's definitely fine. She has been unwell quite a lot recently. Events cancelled and travel banned. At any of those points did the "the Queen is unwell" news coverage become all channels rolling as it did on the 8th...?
London Bridge had a whole book of protocols for the BBC and other key broadcasters. Which uniquely was obviously in effect that afternoon.
They're rather telegraphing their next moves aren't they? Reminds me of all the choreography involving jets flying to and from Siberian nuclear hideouts back in the spring.
Some mentioned a few days ago that somewhere in the depths of the Kremlin there's a brainstorming session with "how do we get ourselves out of this" on a whiteboard. Clearly in that workshop the decision was:
- A couple of referendums to create facts on the ground. That seemed to work in 2014 - One more round of nuclear blackmail. The gas thing didn't work but we know the West are scared of nukes - In the meantime do a bit of good-cop bad-cop and get Erdogan to let the world know we're ready to talk with Ukraine - We then announce a ceasefire and a proposal to retain the whole of Donetsk and Luhansk along with Kherson (we can give that one away later) - Rest of the world will jump at the opportunity to bring this one to a conclusion and get their gas back
That sounds plausible
Unfortunately I suspect they’ve folded a small nuclear strike into that scenario, to frighten the shit out of everyone. Nothing apocalyptic, but nuclear, yes
Nah. India and China have firmly told them that if they use nukes, they are alone in a very cold world.
Diplomatic pressure on India and China to stop buying oil and gas for example would be immense. Every means of isolation not fully used would be. SWIFT ends, any loopholes, sanctions busters come down on like a ton of bricks. Then just let Russia collapse. Meanwhile, supply Ukraine with every piece of kit they want that isn't a nuke.
That’s all very rational, I fear we are not dealing with a rational actor
Look at it from Putin’s perspective. You’re getting your arse kicked in a disastrous war. This is a war YOU chose, for no obvious reason and with no obvious goal. 50,000 of your soldiers have died. You’ve crippled Russia’s economy
There is no way you can win, with conventional forces now. Even mobilization will take many months
Meanwhile you are losing ground, and you’re heading for humiliating defeat, even as your biggest critics in Moscow are hawks who want MORE war
The end is nigh. When you are defeated you will probably be toppled like Gadaffi, as will everyone around you. The entire elite. Lynched
So: roll the nuclear dice. Change the game. Terrify the world
@Leon - That is sadly a rational analysis. I hope you are wrong.
On a more lighter topic I wanted to ask you advice. My travel is mainly EU based and I haven't needed to worry about return flights or accommodation as being a prerequisite for getting into any country (proof you intend to leave) so don't always book stuff. It didn't cross my mind that this is no longer true and luckily I have got away with it. I have not been challenged, but my cousin was recently when travelling to Madeira of all places.
I get the impression that you take a very flexible attitude to your travel arrangements and travel a lot outside of the EU. You seemed to be making the arrangements on the fly when visiting ex Soviet states recently. Do you have issues with this and how do you get around it.
I’ve never been asked and it’s never been a problem
One thing I noted on my recent flights into Portugal and out of Spain is that border officials have stopped looking through the pages of my passport to check if I’ve overstepped my EU 90 day travel allowance. They just stamp the passport, shrug, and off you go. Saves a lot of time
However I did also have to use e-gates at both frontiers
Are the e-gates now so sophisticated they are compiling EU-wide data on every British tourist in the EU? So your comings and goings are logged in Brussels?
Or have they simply abandoned any attempt to track us, as too slow and difficult?
The issue wasn't the 90 days* but that you can prove you are leaving. He was asked to show he had a return flight (which he could do). I have never been asked that and on many occasions I would not have been able to do so. I assume this is more common when travelling elsewhere (flights to USA?) and guessed you had come across it and how you get around it. I note from the internet people book flights they have no intention of taking and cancel them or even use mocked up tickets. Sounds risky to me.
* He actually endured more than just having to prove he was leaving. He was lucky he had tickets as he has a place there and often would not have booked the flight home before arriving. However when shown the tickets the border official told him he would be exceeding his 90 day allowance. Thus followed a stand up, 'No I won't', Yes you will' and at which point he had to wait for everyone to go through before people got out their calculators. At this point they said they would let him off this time, which should be interpreted as 'Sorry we got it wrong'. Why can officials never admit they got something wrong?
Every trip I've been on in the EU, they ask i) what I am doing ii) where exactly I am going iii) how I am getting there, iv) when am I leaving. Never been asked for 'proof' though because I suppose they were happy with my answers. Not quite as annoying as the US border guard.
I've not been asked on any of my trips - and on my last trip (Rome in July) I was using one of the machines, so there was no-one to ask me.
I transferred planes at the much delayed and expensive new Berlin Brandenberg airport on Friday. Passport queue was 45 minutes - anyone not an EU Schengen resident had to be manually checked in, even those from EM member Romania where my flight originated.
Ze German border guards were extremely thorough. Checking that everyone could prove a valid reason for travel, accommodation, funds, a return ticket. Romanian student in front of me had to show accreditation for the course he was doing. I had to show my boarding card for my onward flight.
Entertainingly it was the same 40 minutes later on the way out. Where had I come from. Where was I going. What was the purpose of my 40 minutes in Germany? Even without Brexit, we would have been stuck in that. And once their new Schengen biometrics faff starts the queues will be even longer for your first visit as you have fingerprints done and an iris scan and an anal probe.
I was trying to work out why you had to ho into Schengen but you were playing the 2 separate plane tickets game... Rather you than me as it always goes wrong for me.
"The UK is weighing up whether to attend a new European political "club of nations" next month.
The first meeting of the "European Political Community" is due to be held in Prague in early October.
Downing Street wants to see more detail on the summit before Prime Minister Liz Truss commits to attending it and no final decision has been made."
It has Europe in the name so no 10 will turn down the invitation . And Truss is a puppet of the ERG who will implode if she dared attend anything that looked like co-operating with EU countries .
The main issue is that it would continue the situation of a dominant inner circle that can force the outer circle into compliance. If a new broader forum is needed, it should include Canada and the US so no bloc has a majority of votes.
The UK is an unusually excellent position with Europe (as a continent) right now: we've led on Ukraine, and we've been right.
What we need to do is to stiffen the resolve of other European countries, and to ensure arms and ammunition factories are working, and that the flow of munitions to Ukraine continues.
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and Putin could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
It's worth noting that Ukraine destroyed earlier attempts at fake referenda in the occupied areas with a combination of local sabotage and military strikes.
Why are they fake?
Plus I like the idea of military strikes on attempted referendums.
They announced that only people who had Russian issued ID could vote, for a start. Oh, and Russian military and assorted hangers-on would be voting as well....
The buildings they were storing ballots and equipment in had lots of "Lucky Strike" accidents. As did some of the (attempted) organisers.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
Ukraine wants an existing part of Ukraine to be in Ukraine, in accordance with the referendum held at the time of independence of Ukraine, when the part of Ukraine voted to be Ukraine by a majority?
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and Putin could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
It's worth noting that Ukraine destroyed earlier attempts at fake referenda in the occupied areas with a combination of local sabotage and military strikes.
Why are they fake?
Plus I like the idea of military strikes on attempted referendums.
Something between 900k and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens, many of whom should be in the Electorate, have been deported to Russia - for a start. That is the US State Department estimate.
How to you hold a referendum when a big chunk of the Electorate has been taken out of the country by the invading forces?
Plus all the people driven out between 2014 and now.
Thank you. I wonder what the overall population of those areas is.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
Ukraine wants an existing part of Ukraine to be in Ukraine, in accordance with the referendum held at the time of independence of Ukraine, when the part of Ukraine voted to be Ukraine by a majority?
No shit, Sherlock !
Be that as it may, what Misty is saying is that Ukraine is no likelier to hold a genuinely free and fair referendum than Russia. Your post seems rather to imply that if the territory were to return to Ukraine, any plebiscite would be forgotten.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
By pre-announced I didn't mean they said "the Queen is dead". But they did say "concern for the Queen's health" and "peacefully resting" whilst BBC quietly cancelled its schedule and started rolling coverage with lots of OB that afternoon whilst they prepared the studio for later.
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
No, not just you, it was obvious she was dead or about to die. Sorry, ive already been involved in a lengthy 'discussion' over whether the news was given to anyone before 4.30pm. I'm firmly of the opinion it was heavily telegraphed but obviously not said.
For Princess Di they said she was "gravely ill" and I thought ah then she'll be fine, until a doctor friend of mine said nope, gravely is she's unrevivable.
Buckingham Palace issued that short statement that the Queen was under medical supervision and was "comfortable". The latter word in that context clearly being that she was dead.
She saw off that lying cad Johnson, having been clinging on for the last few years then months to see the back of him. Then almost as soon as she shook hands with Mistress Truss she appears to have gone into a very rapid decline.
I know that very old people do have this ability to fight on and then largely switch themselves off, and that does seem to be what has happened here. No wonder Bonzo looked so unhappy having been blocked from queue-jumping in the Abbey. His removal from office was literally the Queen's dying wish...
No, despite what you assert it wasn't clear she was dead when that statement was given.
Indeed. The BBC suspend all programming and go to rolling news exclusively about the Queen because she's definitely fine. She has been unwell quite a lot recently. Events cancelled and travel banned. At any of those points did the "the Queen is unwell" news coverage become all channels rolling as it did on the 8th...?
London Bridge had a whole book of protocols for the BBC and other key broadcasters. Which uniquely was obviously in effect that afternoon.
Who said anything about her being "definitely fine". Near death is not definitely fine.
They're rather telegraphing their next moves aren't they? Reminds me of all the choreography involving jets flying to and from Siberian nuclear hideouts back in the spring.
Some mentioned a few days ago that somewhere in the depths of the Kremlin there's a brainstorming session with "how do we get ourselves out of this" on a whiteboard. Clearly in that workshop the decision was:
- A couple of referendums to create facts on the ground. That seemed to work in 2014 - One more round of nuclear blackmail. The gas thing didn't work but we know the West are scared of nukes - In the meantime do a bit of good-cop bad-cop and get Erdogan to let the world know we're ready to talk with Ukraine - We then announce a ceasefire and a proposal to retain the whole of Donetsk and Luhansk along with Kherson (we can give that one away later) - Rest of the world will jump at the opportunity to bring this one to a conclusion and get their gas back
That sounds plausible
Unfortunately I suspect they’ve folded a small nuclear strike into that scenario, to frighten the shit out of everyone. Nothing apocalyptic, but nuclear, yes
Nah. India and China have firmly told them that if they use nukes, they are alone in a very cold world.
Diplomatic pressure on India and China to stop buying oil and gas for example would be immense. Every means of isolation not fully used would be. SWIFT ends, any loopholes, sanctions busters come down on like a ton of bricks. Then just let Russia collapse. Meanwhile, supply Ukraine with every piece of kit they want that isn't a nuke.
That’s all very rational, I fear we are not dealing with a rational actor
Look at it from Putin’s perspective. You’re getting your arse kicked in a disastrous war. This is a war YOU chose, for no obvious reason and with no obvious goal. 50,000 of your soldiers have died. You’ve crippled Russia’s economy
There is no way you can win, with conventional forces now. Even mobilization will take many months
Meanwhile you are losing ground, and you’re heading for humiliating defeat, even as your biggest critics in Moscow are hawks who want MORE war
The end is nigh. When you are defeated you will probably be toppled like Gadaffi, as will everyone around you. The entire elite. Lynched
So: roll the nuclear dice. Change the game. Terrify the world
@Leon - That is sadly a rational analysis. I hope you are wrong.
On a more lighter topic I wanted to ask you advice. My travel is mainly EU based and I haven't needed to worry about return flights or accommodation as being a prerequisite for getting into any country (proof you intend to leave) so don't always book stuff. It didn't cross my mind that this is no longer true and luckily I have got away with it. I have not been challenged, but my cousin was recently when travelling to Madeira of all places.
I get the impression that you take a very flexible attitude to your travel arrangements and travel a lot outside of the EU. You seemed to be making the arrangements on the fly when visiting ex Soviet states recently. Do you have issues with this and how do you get around it.
I’ve never been asked and it’s never been a problem
One thing I noted on my recent flights into Portugal and out of Spain is that border officials have stopped looking through the pages of my passport to check if I’ve overstepped my EU 90 day travel allowance. They just stamp the passport, shrug, and off you go. Saves a lot of time
However I did also have to use e-gates at both frontiers
Are the e-gates now so sophisticated they are compiling EU-wide data on every British tourist in the EU? So your comings and goings are logged in Brussels?
Or have they simply abandoned any attempt to track us, as too slow and difficult?
The issue wasn't the 90 days* but that you can prove you are leaving. He was asked to show he had a return flight (which he could do). I have never been asked that and on many occasions I would not have been able to do so. I assume this is more common when travelling elsewhere (flights to USA?) and guessed you had come across it and how you get around it. I note from the internet people book flights they have no intention of taking and cancel them or even use mocked up tickets. Sounds risky to me.
* He actually endured more than just having to prove he was leaving. He was lucky he had tickets as he has a place there and often would not have booked the flight home before arriving. However when shown the tickets the border official told him he would be exceeding his 90 day allowance. Thus followed a stand up, 'No I won't', Yes you will' and at which point he had to wait for everyone to go through before people got out their calculators. At this point they said they would let him off this time, which should be interpreted as 'Sorry we got it wrong'. Why can officials never admit they got something wrong?
Every trip I've been on in the EU, they ask i) what I am doing ii) where exactly I am going iii) how I am getting there, iv) when am I leaving. Never been asked for 'proof' though because I suppose they were happy with my answers. Not quite as annoying as the US border guard.
I've not been asked on any of my trips - and on my last trip (Rome in July) I was using one of the machines, so there was no-one to ask me.
My 16 year old daughter go asked on a school trip to Austria - how many T-Shirts do you have ? At least she thought she got asked that until I said "are you sure it was not how many teachers you had?" - at least her stumbling answer of about 7 probably seemed ok to the border guard on the teacher front as well
Was that a language issue? I remember in my German GCSE oral, I had to role play buying four stamps (Briefmarken) for sending mail to the UK. I managed 'vier Brieftragen fur England bitte' - 'four postmen for England please'. Still got an A though. God knows how.
Russia’s former president Dmitry Medvedev says if Ukraine’s breakaway regions vote to join Russia, it will allow Moscow to utilise its full military capability in the Donbass region Follow our live coverage:👇
Russia will give itself the option of all-out war next spring, via this legal route - ‘Russia itself is being attacked’
In the interim they will halt the Ukrainian advance by dropping a small nuke, on Snake Island or wherever. Somewhere that the fall-out can be restricted (so not the Zap plant)
This could easily work. The west will tell Ukraine to back down, they might back down anyway. The world goes into a brutal new Cold War, Russia holds onto its “gains” in Ukraine at a terrible price. Putin can claim some gargoyle of a victory
The world goes on. Sighs of relief are heard. We get used to the new reality
Dropping a "small nuke" brings an immediate and devastating response from the US.
Which is what? The USA won’t start all-out war over Ukraine
They would just do more of the same. Sanctions, arms to Kyiv, etc
That won’t horrify Putin. The more he can paint this war as existential - Russia v NATO - the likelier his survival
Russia using nukes wouldn't be in response to anything other than Putin being made to look a failure.
The Russians are scrupulously not being invaded. Ukraine has fought this war with one hand tied behind its back, using NATO hand-me-downs. Using nukes won't make Russia a winner. The only thing under threat is Putin's place in the pantheon of Russian greats.
There is no justifiable need to use nukes. It would mean anyone complicit in that decision would be hounded to the ends of the earth as war criminals. And that to end of their lives.
It would be a bigger moment than 9/11.
You are hopecasting. You are not making predictions, you are stating fears and aspirations
Look at what they are doing today. Organising referendums and paving the legal road to mobilisation
Luhansk and Donbass will vote to become Russia. Once they are Russia then any Ukrainain forces there will be "invading Russia" = all out war.
Russia does not have the conventional forces for all out war, and mobilisation will take months to impact that
Ergo, they have to stop the Ukrainian/NATO "invasion of Russia" now, and with other means, to save Russia
All that sounds hideously plausible.
But the question is whether - outside the use of nuclear weapons - Russia can escalate. Adding poorly clothed, poorly armed conscripts to the meat grinder in Eastern Ukraine, where they will die by the tens of thousands, does not obviously strengthen Putin.
And it will mean that the Russians need to continue to pull experienced troops from other parts of their Empire, because you can't just send new conscripts.
Plus there's the continued issue of logistics. Pretty much all the European arms companies have factories working at capacity to replace munitions sent to Ukraine. We can do that. Russia, on the other hand, finds that much harder. For a start, their economy is only the size of Spain's, and secondly their arms industry depends on imports. The fact that they've needed to go begging to the North Koreans for artillery shells tells you that supplies there are far from secure.
I’m trying to think of a way out of this self-created mess, for Putin, that does NOT involve massive escalation
I can’t find one. If he withdraws that’s a defeat and he will be Gaddafi’d. If he carries on as is, Russia will lose slowly, and the endpoint is the same for him, only worse as the Russian army will be minced further
He’s bleeding out. Retreat is not an option. He has to attack. That means mobilisation or WMD (of some kind) - or both
Perhaps it is time for them to pee or get off the pot.
All the talk has been a long and protracted war. Maybe it will be quicker than that.
One thing that doesn't seem to have been discussed about Russia potentially using nuclear weapons against Ukraine is the effect on proliferation. If a country uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression and the response isn't enough to give non-nuclear nations confidence it won't happen again, I suspect you'd see a massive uptick in nuclear programs.
Poland would be a key contender - clearly they have the capability to obtain nuclear weapons (big enough economy, rich(ish) and have domestic nuclear power. They also feel threatened by Russia. If you're confident only conventional weapons will be used to attack you, then you can easily rely on NATO (or other major power guarantors). If it goes nuclear, your conventional military is suddenly not so much of a deterrent and your backers are less likely to want to get into a nuclear confrontation. So having your own weapons suddenly becomes much more important.
Who else might go nuclear? Turkey? Taiwan? Japan? South Korea?
I'd have thought the Baltic states probably lack the capability.
Everyone with an old reactor cooling pond has the material - Plutonium with low amounts of Pu-240.
Implosion has gone from the frontiers of science to something that is explosives engineering now. The equipment to test and verify a design is widespread - high speed X-ray systems for one. Modern computing power makes the design of implosion systems relatively simple.
You would probably go straight to a two point design these days - maybe even flying plate (aka air lens) system.
A single stage design, with plutonium, could get up to 200Kt. IIRC the French pushed it that far. If you had enriched uranium you produce some rather dangerous designs up to a megaton - more probably half a megaton. See the Mk 18....
200Kt is into the modern strategic warhead playing field.
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and Putin could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
It's worth noting that Ukraine destroyed earlier attempts at fake referenda in the occupied areas with a combination of local sabotage and military strikes.
Why are they fake?
Plus I like the idea of military strikes on attempted referendums.
Something between 900k and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens, many of whom should be in the Electorate, have been deported to Russia - for a start. That is the US State Department estimate.
How to you hold a referendum when a big chunk of the Electorate has been taken out of the country by the invading forces?
Plus all the people driven out between 2014 and now.
Thank you. I wonder what the overall population of those areas is.
Generally sharply down, but it depends which areas you mean.
There are ~7 million refugees in Europe from Ukraine, which (guestimate) is something like 20% of the entire Ukraine electorate) in addition to however many have been deported to Russia (minus any deportees who eg escaped to Finland over the couple of still-open border points).
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
Ukraine wants an existing part of Ukraine to be in Ukraine, in accordance with the referendum held at the time of independence of Ukraine, when the part of Ukraine voted to be Ukraine by a majority?
No shit, Sherlock !
Be that as it may, what Misty is saying is that Ukraine is no likelier to hold a genuinely free and fair referendum than Russia. Your post seems rather to imply that if the territory were to return to Ukraine, any plebiscite would be forgotten.
There’s no referendum to be had, while a war is ongoing.
Ukraine is Ukraine, and the people who want to live in Russia can return to Russia. It’s a big place Russia, there’s room for everyone.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
I heard it fourth-hand at about 3.00 p.m. that she had died. On the previous Friday, I heard from a dfferent source that "the Queen is not leaving Balmoral".
I’m trying to think of a way out of this self-created mess, for Putin, that does NOT involve massive escalation
I can’t find one. If he withdraws that’s a defeat and he will be Gaddafi’d. If he carries on as is, Russia will lose slowly, and the endpoint is the same for him, only worse as the Russian army will be minced further
He’s bleeding out. Retreat is not an option. He has to attack. That means mobilisation or WMD (of some kind) - or both
Putin could consolidate one of the two new 'republics' claim a partial victory, keep Crimea and let the other one remain a disputed battleground undermining Ukraine.
Then he sits back and waits for Trump to give him the rest on a plate in 2024.
But that ignores the fact that he’s losing the war. And Ukraine is not going to stop fighting to retake its territory as long as it has western support
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
Ukraine wants an existing part of Ukraine to be in Ukraine, in accordance with the referendum held at the time of independence of Ukraine, when the part of Ukraine voted to be Ukraine by a majority?
No shit, Sherlock !
Be that as it may, what Misty is saying is that Ukraine is no likelier to hold a genuinely free and fair referendum than Russia. Your post seems rather to imply that if the territory were to return to Ukraine, any plebiscite would be forgotten.
For the record, my preferred outcome would be that Ukraine kicked Russia out of all of these provinces and regained them and re-established itself as a country but I really fear that would be far from the end of the matter.
Government looks like having second thoughts on Channel 4 privatisation. To me , this is the ideal type of organisation that should be a workers cooperative. - ie not essential but good to have as many different models in a public type shared service.
A very good idea, actually, although it would have to keep interacting with all those independent production companies it sustains.
The standards of programming at Channel 4 were best when it worked as the genuinely private/public interest combination it was intended to be, in the much less ideological civil service and administrative climate of the late '70s and early '80s.
It was subsidised via ITV to be non-commercial, highbrow and community-minded, but also founded to boost the UK's independent production sector, and carried its own advertising too. The idiotic Broadcasting Act of 1990 got rid of both Channel 4's original structure and this as well, taking about five years to feed through - and also abolished the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which kept the ITV companies producing some higher-quality and public interest programming. All regulation was bad, much as Liz Truss thinks.
They're rather telegraphing their next moves aren't they? Reminds me of all the choreography involving jets flying to and from Siberian nuclear hideouts back in the spring.
Some mentioned a few days ago that somewhere in the depths of the Kremlin there's a brainstorming session with "how do we get ourselves out of this" on a whiteboard. Clearly in that workshop the decision was:
- A couple of referendums to create facts on the ground. That seemed to work in 2014 - One more round of nuclear blackmail. The gas thing didn't work but we know the West are scared of nukes - In the meantime do a bit of good-cop bad-cop and get Erdogan to let the world know we're ready to talk with Ukraine - We then announce a ceasefire and a proposal to retain the whole of Donetsk and Luhansk along with Kherson (we can give that one away later) - Rest of the world will jump at the opportunity to bring this one to a conclusion and get their gas back
That sounds plausible
Unfortunately I suspect they’ve folded a small nuclear strike into that scenario, to frighten the shit out of everyone. Nothing apocalyptic, but nuclear, yes
Nah. India and China have firmly told them that if they use nukes, they are alone in a very cold world.
Diplomatic pressure on India and China to stop buying oil and gas for example would be immense. Every means of isolation not fully used would be. SWIFT ends, any loopholes, sanctions busters come down on like a ton of bricks. Then just let Russia collapse. Meanwhile, supply Ukraine with every piece of kit they want that isn't a nuke.
That’s all very rational, I fear we are not dealing with a rational actor
Look at it from Putin’s perspective. You’re getting your arse kicked in a disastrous war. This is a war YOU chose, for no obvious reason and with no obvious goal. 50,000 of your soldiers have died. You’ve crippled Russia’s economy
There is no way you can win, with conventional forces now. Even mobilization will take many months
Meanwhile you are losing ground, and you’re heading for humiliating defeat, even as your biggest critics in Moscow are hawks who want MORE war
The end is nigh. When you are defeated you will probably be toppled like Gadaffi, as will everyone around you. The entire elite. Lynched
So: roll the nuclear dice. Change the game. Terrify the world
@Leon - That is sadly a rational analysis. I hope you are wrong.
On a more lighter topic I wanted to ask you advice. My travel is mainly EU based and I haven't needed to worry about return flights or accommodation as being a prerequisite for getting into any country (proof you intend to leave) so don't always book stuff. It didn't cross my mind that this is no longer true and luckily I have got away with it. I have not been challenged, but my cousin was recently when travelling to Madeira of all places.
I get the impression that you take a very flexible attitude to your travel arrangements and travel a lot outside of the EU. You seemed to be making the arrangements on the fly when visiting ex Soviet states recently. Do you have issues with this and how do you get around it.
I’ve never been asked and it’s never been a problem
One thing I noted on my recent flights into Portugal and out of Spain is that border officials have stopped looking through the pages of my passport to check if I’ve overstepped my EU 90 day travel allowance. They just stamp the passport, shrug, and off you go. Saves a lot of time
However I did also have to use e-gates at both frontiers
Are the e-gates now so sophisticated they are compiling EU-wide data on every British tourist in the EU? So your comings and goings are logged in Brussels?
Or have they simply abandoned any attempt to track us, as too slow and difficult?
The issue wasn't the 90 days* but that you can prove you are leaving. He was asked to show he had a return flight (which he could do). I have never been asked that and on many occasions I would not have been able to do so. I assume this is more common when travelling elsewhere (flights to USA?) and guessed you had come across it and how you get around it. I note from the internet people book flights they have no intention of taking and cancel them or even use mocked up tickets. Sounds risky to me.
* He actually endured more than just having to prove he was leaving. He was lucky he had tickets as he has a place there and often would not have booked the flight home before arriving. However when shown the tickets the border official told him he would be exceeding his 90 day allowance. Thus followed a stand up, 'No I won't', Yes you will' and at which point he had to wait for everyone to go through before people got out their calculators. At this point they said they would let him off this time, which should be interpreted as 'Sorry we got it wrong'. Why can officials never admit they got something wrong?
Every trip I've been on in the EU, they ask i) what I am doing ii) where exactly I am going iii) how I am getting there, iv) when am I leaving. Never been asked for 'proof' though because I suppose they were happy with my answers. Not quite as annoying as the US border guard.
I've not been asked on any of my trips - and on my last trip (Rome in July) I was using one of the machines, so there was no-one to ask me.
I transferred planes at the much delayed and expensive new Berlin Brandenberg airport on Friday. Passport queue was 45 minutes - anyone not an EU Schengen resident had to be manually checked in, even those from EM member Romania where my flight originated.
Ze German border guards were extremely thorough. Checking that everyone could prove a valid reason for travel, accommodation, funds, a return ticket. Romanian student in front of me had to show accreditation for the course he was doing. I had to show my boarding card for my onward flight.
Entertainingly it was the same 40 minutes later on the way out. Where had I come from. Where was I going. What was the purpose of my 40 minutes in Germany? Even without Brexit, we would have been stuck in that. And once their new Schengen biometrics faff starts the queues will be even longer for your first visit as you have fingerprints done and an iris scan and an anal probe.
My Dad - remainer - had to transit through Frankfurt recently. Just made his flight to the UK after having to wait to go through the international gate, while the EU lane was empty. Took great pleasure in moaning about it to me when I saw him a few days later. I nodded sympathetically.
He told me about a friend of his - staunch leaver - who in a similar situation had a go at the border guards, telling them they were jealous of Brexit and that they were discriminating against the British. Apparently my dad's mate enjoyed the encounter. A pleasant righteous anger.
Brexit's just gonna keep on giving whatever side you're on.
I’m trying to think of a way out of this self-created mess, for Putin, that does NOT involve massive escalation
I can’t find one. If he withdraws that’s a defeat and he will be Gaddafi’d. If he carries on as is, Russia will lose slowly, and the endpoint is the same for him, only worse as the Russian army will be minced further
He’s bleeding out. Retreat is not an option. He has to attack. That means mobilisation or WMD (of some kind) - or both
Just to throw this in: see the Moscow apartment block bombings of 1999. These terrorist attacks designed to cause maximum loss of life were blamed on Chechen forces, who denied any part in them. Many believe the FSB was involved. Guess whose response to the bombings as prime minister helped propel him into the presidency. He'd only been PM for a month. Before that, he was head of the FSB.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
You mean an election where Putin's goon-squad is NOT in charge of running it as they wish?
Or is a old-school "plebiscite" good enough for you? Manged say by these Putin-loving MAGA-manics:
Putin could be shooting himself in the foot if he tries to formally annex parts of mainland Ukraine while the war is still going on because Crimea would lose its Rubicon status.
One thing that doesn't seem to have been discussed about Russia potentially using nuclear weapons against Ukraine is the effect on proliferation. If a country uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression and the response isn't enough to give non-nuclear nations confidence it won't happen again, I suspect you'd see a massive uptick in nuclear programs.
Poland would be a key contender - clearly they have the capability to obtain nuclear weapons (big enough economy, rich(ish) and have domestic nuclear power. They also feel threatened by Russia. If you're confident only conventional weapons will be used to attack you, then you can easily rely on NATO (or other major power guarantors). If it goes nuclear, your conventional military is suddenly not so much of a deterrent and your backers are less likely to want to get into a nuclear confrontation. So having your own weapons suddenly becomes much more important.
Who else might go nuclear? Turkey? Taiwan? Japan? South Korea?
I'd have thought the Baltic states probably lack the capability.
And this is why China is desperate for Russia not to use nuclear weapons: because it inevitably leads to nuclear armed Japan, Korea and Taiwan.
All of those countries have domestic nuclear power. All have the technical capacity.
The pressure on Russia from China will be immense, including (one would surmise) the threat of sanctions every bit as severe as those from the West.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
Ukraine wants an existing part of Ukraine to be in Ukraine, in accordance with the referendum held at the time of independence of Ukraine, when the part of Ukraine voted to be Ukraine by a majority?
No shit, Sherlock !
Be that as it may, what Misty is saying is that Ukraine is no likelier to hold a genuinely free and fair referendum than Russia. Your post seems rather to imply that if the territory were to return to Ukraine, any plebiscite would be forgotten.
There’s no referendum to be had, while a war is ongoing.
Ukraine is Ukraine, and the people who want to live in Russia can return to Russia. It’s a big place Russia, there’s room for everyone.
Neither country is short on landmass, but yes, a lot of population displacement seems an inevitable part of any long term solution.
They're rather telegraphing their next moves aren't they? Reminds me of all the choreography involving jets flying to and from Siberian nuclear hideouts back in the spring.
Some mentioned a few days ago that somewhere in the depths of the Kremlin there's a brainstorming session with "how do we get ourselves out of this" on a whiteboard. Clearly in that workshop the decision was:
- A couple of referendums to create facts on the ground. That seemed to work in 2014 - One more round of nuclear blackmail. The gas thing didn't work but we know the West are scared of nukes - In the meantime do a bit of good-cop bad-cop and get Erdogan to let the world know we're ready to talk with Ukraine - We then announce a ceasefire and a proposal to retain the whole of Donetsk and Luhansk along with Kherson (we can give that one away later) - Rest of the world will jump at the opportunity to bring this one to a conclusion and get their gas back
That sounds plausible
Unfortunately I suspect they’ve folded a small nuclear strike into that scenario, to frighten the shit out of everyone. Nothing apocalyptic, but nuclear, yes
Nah. India and China have firmly told them that if they use nukes, they are alone in a very cold world.
Diplomatic pressure on India and China to stop buying oil and gas for example would be immense. Every means of isolation not fully used would be. SWIFT ends, any loopholes, sanctions busters come down on like a ton of bricks. Then just let Russia collapse. Meanwhile, supply Ukraine with every piece of kit they want that isn't a nuke.
That’s all very rational, I fear we are not dealing with a rational actor
Look at it from Putin’s perspective. You’re getting your arse kicked in a disastrous war. This is a war YOU chose, for no obvious reason and with no obvious goal. 50,000 of your soldiers have died. You’ve crippled Russia’s economy
There is no way you can win, with conventional forces now. Even mobilization will take many months
Meanwhile you are losing ground, and you’re heading for humiliating defeat, even as your biggest critics in Moscow are hawks who want MORE war
The end is nigh. When you are defeated you will probably be toppled like Gadaffi, as will everyone around you. The entire elite. Lynched
So: roll the nuclear dice. Change the game. Terrify the world
@Leon - That is sadly a rational analysis. I hope you are wrong.
On a more lighter topic I wanted to ask you advice. My travel is mainly EU based and I haven't needed to worry about return flights or accommodation as being a prerequisite for getting into any country (proof you intend to leave) so don't always book stuff. It didn't cross my mind that this is no longer true and luckily I have got away with it. I have not been challenged, but my cousin was recently when travelling to Madeira of all places.
I get the impression that you take a very flexible attitude to your travel arrangements and travel a lot outside of the EU. You seemed to be making the arrangements on the fly when visiting ex Soviet states recently. Do you have issues with this and how do you get around it.
I’ve never been asked and it’s never been a problem
One thing I noted on my recent flights into Portugal and out of Spain is that border officials have stopped looking through the pages of my passport to check if I’ve overstepped my EU 90 day travel allowance. They just stamp the passport, shrug, and off you go. Saves a lot of time
However I did also have to use e-gates at both frontiers
Are the e-gates now so sophisticated they are compiling EU-wide data on every British tourist in the EU? So your comings and goings are logged in Brussels?
Or have they simply abandoned any attempt to track us, as too slow and difficult?
The issue wasn't the 90 days* but that you can prove you are leaving. He was asked to show he had a return flight (which he could do). I have never been asked that and on many occasions I would not have been able to do so. I assume this is more common when travelling elsewhere (flights to USA?) and guessed you had come across it and how you get around it. I note from the internet people book flights they have no intention of taking and cancel them or even use mocked up tickets. Sounds risky to me.
* He actually endured more than just having to prove he was leaving. He was lucky he had tickets as he has a place there and often would not have booked the flight home before arriving. However when shown the tickets the border official told him he would be exceeding his 90 day allowance. Thus followed a stand up, 'No I won't', Yes you will' and at which point he had to wait for everyone to go through before people got out their calculators. At this point they said they would let him off this time, which should be interpreted as 'Sorry we got it wrong'. Why can officials never admit they got something wrong?
Every trip I've been on in the EU, they ask i) what I am doing ii) where exactly I am going iii) how I am getting there, iv) when am I leaving. Never been asked for 'proof' though because I suppose they were happy with my answers. Not quite as annoying as the US border guard.
I've not been asked on any of my trips - and on my last trip (Rome in July) I was using one of the machines, so there was no-one to ask me.
I transferred planes at the much delayed and expensive new Berlin Brandenberg airport on Friday. Passport queue was 45 minutes - anyone not an EU Schengen resident had to be manually checked in, even those from EM member Romania where my flight originated.
Ze German border guards were extremely thorough. Checking that everyone could prove a valid reason for travel, accommodation, funds, a return ticket. Romanian student in front of me had to show accreditation for the course he was doing. I had to show my boarding card for my onward flight.
Entertainingly it was the same 40 minutes later on the way out. Where had I come from. Where was I going. What was the purpose of my 40 minutes in Germany? Even without Brexit, we would have been stuck in that. And once their new Schengen biometrics faff starts the queues will be even longer for your first visit as you have fingerprints done and an iris scan and an anal probe.
My Dad - remainer - had to transit through Frankfurt recently. Just made his flight to the UK after having to wait to go through the international gate, while the EU lane was empty. Took great pleasure in moaning about it to me when I saw him a few days later. I nodded sympathetically.
He told me about a friend of his - staunch leaver - who in a similar situation had a go at the border guards, telling them they were jealous of Brexit and that they were discriminating against the British. Apparently my dad's mate enjoyed the encounter. A pleasant righteous anger.
Brexit's just gonna keep on giving whatever side you're on.
Hmm, I wouldn't want to try that Leaver stuff with any border guard. Particularu when the anal probing begins.
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
I heard it fourth-hand at about 3.00 p.m. that she had died. On the previous Friday, I heard from a dfferent source that "the Queen is not leaving Balmoral".
I saw a comment on another forum (of a national newspaper) the day after, that the time of death was 14:37, ‘from a first-hand source’.
That sounds like a plausible time - not only because of the specificity, but also the other timings of the day. At 13:30, the media were told that the ‘bridge was not down’, but were still putting on their black ties. It appears clear that the message at midday suggested the event was very much imminent. The King’s flight was scrambled before 7am, so something had obviously happened overnight.
Take the Koh-i-Noor and other diamonds within the Crown Jewels. It's pretty easy to admit most of that was taken at the point of a gun, even if officially they were signed over or gifted to us, and it's pretty easy to say they should go back to the countries we took them from.
Four different countries want the Koh-i-Noor so it's certainly not easy, and it's not obvious why the claim of any previous dynasties should supersede its current ownership.
Okay, maybe easy is over egging it - but we could easily put systems in place to discuss this. Audit our hoard of treasures from colonial conquest and have diplomats and historians figure out who best to return them to.
And there are good reasons, both material and moral. The moral first - the modern conquest of a lot of the developing world by Britain has shaped the world we are in now. India, pre conquest, held ~ a third of the worlds value in trade and industry, when we left it was 2%. This was sucked out of India and given to us. The benefits of conquest, via government and crown, surround us today and are part of why certain international inequities still exist.
Secondly, and more realpolitik, if post Brexit UK wants to make friends, some of these more "symbolic" reparations could be a good way of building political capital abroad without the systemic reparations (which I am still in favour of).
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
I heard it fourth-hand at about 3.00 p.m. that she had died. On the previous Friday, I heard from a dfferent source that "the Queen is not leaving Balmoral".
Well that last part wasn't true - she went to Edinburgh, then London and Windsor.
I’m trying to think of a way out of this self-created mess, for Putin, that does NOT involve massive escalation
I can’t find one. If he withdraws that’s a defeat and he will be Gaddafi’d. If he carries on as is, Russia will lose slowly, and the endpoint is the same for him, only worse as the Russian army will be minced further
He’s bleeding out. Retreat is not an option. He has to attack. That means mobilisation or WMD (of some kind) - or both
Putin could consolidate one of the two new 'republics' claim a partial victory, keep Crimea and let the other one remain a disputed battleground undermining Ukraine.
Then he sits back and waits for Trump to give him the rest on a plate in 2024.
But that ignores the fact that he’s losing the war. And Ukraine is not going to stop fighting to retake its territory as long as it has western support
He needs to change the facts on the ground
The appearance* of the rule of law is very important in Russia still - today's Duma moves and referenda announcements are I think significant signs of an escalation.
The speed and angle of her descent is already spectacular...
Johnson was effectively out of office the day the 1922 announced the campaign to elect his replacement
There are some on here writing Truss's political obituary less than two weeks into her premiership and may in the next 12 months or more find that they may be very disappointed
Of course no conservative leader could satisfy your lust to re-join the EU but then it seems none of the main parties share your desire, so it looks like you are destined for years in despair
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and Putin could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
It's worth noting that Ukraine destroyed earlier attempts at fake referenda in the occupied areas with a combination of local sabotage and military strikes.
Why are they fake?
Plus I like the idea of military strikes on attempted referendums.
Something between 900k and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens, many of whom should be in the Electorate, have been deported to Russia - for a start. That is the US State Department estimate.
How to you hold a referendum when a big chunk of the Electorate has been taken out of the country by the invading forces?
Plus all the people driven out between 2014 and now.
Thank you. I wonder what the overall population of those areas is.
Generally sharply down, but it depends which areas you mean.
There are ~7 million refugees in Europe from Ukraine, which (guestimate) is something like 20% of the entire Ukraine electorate) in addition to however many have been deported to Russia (minus any deportees who eg escaped to Finland over the couple of still-open border points).
1-2 million have gone to Russia, depending on which source you read.
That must have been quite some operation, eh, "deporting" so many people against their will? I wonder why they did it. Must have used a lot of resources that could have been used in fighting the war. Ah, irrationality!
Are you completely ignorant of the fact that a large proportion of the population of the Donbas view themselves as Russian and not Ukrainian? Which way would you run if you were Russian?
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and Putin could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
It's worth noting that Ukraine destroyed earlier attempts at fake referenda in the occupied areas with a combination of local sabotage and military strikes.
Why are they fake?
Plus I like the idea of military strikes on attempted referendums.
One thing that doesn't seem to have been discussed about Russia potentially using nuclear weapons against Ukraine is the effect on proliferation. If a country uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression and the response isn't enough to give non-nuclear nations confidence it won't happen again, I suspect you'd see a massive uptick in nuclear programs.
Poland would be a key contender - clearly they have the capability to obtain nuclear weapons (big enough economy, rich(ish) and have domestic nuclear power. They also feel threatened by Russia. If you're confident only conventional weapons will be used to attack you, then you can easily rely on NATO (or other major power guarantors). If it goes nuclear, your conventional military is suddenly not so much of a deterrent and your backers are less likely to want to get into a nuclear confrontation. So having your own weapons suddenly becomes much more important.
Who else might go nuclear? Turkey? Taiwan? Japan? South Korea?
I'd have thought the Baltic states probably lack the capability.
And this is why China is desperate for Russia not to use nuclear weapons: because it inevitably leads to nuclear armed Japan, Korea and Taiwan.
All of those countries have domestic nuclear power. All have the technical capacity.
The pressure on Russia from China will be immense, including (one would surmise) the threat of sanctions every bit as severe as those from the West.
Am I the only one who's looking at all this and thinking: the intent of all this is to try to get a peace established on the current front lines? Russia can then claim victory at home. Dodgy referendums to wave as a figleaf, nuclear sabre-rattling (yet again) as a threat, telling their allies that they are eager for peace.
Then they offer peace on the current front lines and demand of us "Why don't you want peace?" if we don't pressure Ukraine to accept it.
“This is starting to feel like another 24 Feb moment: one by one, separatist/Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine announce referendums on joining Russia (23-27 Sep); & Russian Duma approves bill to toughen punishment for desertion/insubordination in times of military mobilisation.”
Igor Girkin said a couple of days ago that if Russia doesn't win then Putin should be under no illusions that there will be a revolution and Putin could end up like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
It's worth noting that Ukraine destroyed earlier attempts at fake referenda in the occupied areas with a combination of local sabotage and military strikes.
Why are they fake?
Plus I like the idea of military strikes on attempted referendums.
Something between 900k and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens, many of whom should be in the Electorate, have been deported to Russia - for a start. That is the US State Department estimate.
How to you hold a referendum when a big chunk of the Electorate has been taken out of the country by the invading forces?
Plus all the people driven out between 2014 and now.
Thank you. I wonder what the overall population of those areas is.
Generally sharply down, but it depends which areas you mean.
There are ~7 million refugees in Europe from Ukraine, which (guestimate) is something like 20% of the entire Ukraine electorate) in addition to however many have been deported to Russia (minus any deportees who eg escaped to Finland over the couple of still-open border points).
1-2 million have gone to Russia, depending on which source you read.
That must have been quite some operation, eh, "deporting" so many people against their will. Are you completely ignorant of the fact that a large proportion of the population of the Donbas view themselves as Russian and not Ukrainian? Which way would you run if you were Russian?
Have heard from a colleague (As his son was involved) that Op London Bridge was apparently in swing by 11 am on the day of the death announcement.
Well yes. The lunchtime "its very serious" announcements that the Queen was "peacefully resting". Yes - she was dead. Wasn't that obvious from the wording? And the very swift switchover to national broadcasting with normal programming cancelled?
Formally announced at 18:30. Pre-announced just after lunch as early stages of London Bridge.
Not pre announced. Otherwise it would have obviously leaked. Earlier 'she will not likely survive the day' type prompts
By pre-announced I didn't mean they said "the Queen is dead". But they did say "concern for the Queen's health" and "peacefully resting" whilst BBC quietly cancelled its schedule and started rolling coverage with lots of OB that afternoon whilst they prepared the studio for later.
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
No, not just you, it was obvious she was dead or about to die. Sorry, ive already been involved in a lengthy 'discussion' over whether the news was given to anyone before 4.30pm. I'm firmly of the opinion it was heavily telegraphed but obviously not said.
For Princess Di they said she was "gravely ill" and I thought ah then she'll be fine, until a doctor friend of mine said nope, gravely is she's unrevivable.
Buckingham Palace issued that short statement that the Queen was under medical supervision and was "comfortable". The latter word in that context clearly being that she was dead.
She saw off that lying cad Johnson, having been clinging on for the last few years then months to see the back of him. Then almost as soon as she shook hands with Mistress Truss she appears to have gone into a very rapid decline.
I know that very old people do have this ability to fight on and then largely switch themselves off, and that does seem to be what has happened here. No wonder Bonzo looked so unhappy having been blocked from queue-jumping in the Abbey. His removal from office was literally the Queen's dying wish...
No, despite what you assert it wasn't clear she was dead when that statement was given.
Indeed. The BBC suspend all programming and go to rolling news exclusively about the Queen because she's definitely fine. She has been unwell quite a lot recently. Events cancelled and travel banned. At any of those points did the "the Queen is unwell" news coverage become all channels rolling as it did on the 8th...?
London Bridge had a whole book of protocols for the BBC and other key broadcasters. Which uniquely was obviously in effect that afternoon.
Who said anything about her being "definitely fine". Near death is not definitely fine.
HM was "resting" in the manner of a Norwegian Blue.
And there are good reasons, both material and moral. The moral first - the modern conquest of a lot of the developing world by Britain has shaped the world we are in now. India, pre conquest, held ~ a third of the worlds value in trade and industry, when we left it was 2%. This was sucked out of India and given to us. The benefits of conquest, via government and crown, surround us today and are part of why certain international inequities still exist.
This is an extremely tenuous claim and an abuse of history. The industrialisation of Western Europe and Japan and the growth of the United States would have dramatically reduced India's share of global GDP with or without the British Raj.
One thing that doesn't seem to have been discussed about Russia potentially using nuclear weapons against Ukraine is the effect on proliferation. If a country uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression and the response isn't enough to give non-nuclear nations confidence it won't happen again, I suspect you'd see a massive uptick in nuclear programs.
Poland would be a key contender - clearly they have the capability to obtain nuclear weapons (big enough economy, rich(ish) and have domestic nuclear power. They also feel threatened by Russia. If you're confident only conventional weapons will be used to attack you, then you can easily rely on NATO (or other major power guarantors). If it goes nuclear, your conventional military is suddenly not so much of a deterrent and your backers are less likely to want to get into a nuclear confrontation. So having your own weapons suddenly becomes much more important.
Who else might go nuclear? Turkey? Taiwan? Japan? South Korea?
I'd have thought the Baltic states probably lack the capability.
And this is why China is desperate for Russia not to use nuclear weapons: because it inevitably leads to nuclear armed Japan, Korea and Taiwan.
All of those countries have domestic nuclear power. All have the technical capacity.
The pressure on Russia from China will be immense, including (one would surmise) the threat of sanctions every bit as severe as those from the West.
Am I the only one who's looking at all this and thinking: the intent of all this is to try to get a peace established on the current front lines? Russia can then claim victory at home. Dodgy referendums to wave as a figleaf, nuclear sabre-rattling (yet again) as a threat, telling their allies that they are eager for peace.
Then they offer peace on the current front lines and demand of us "Why don't you want peace?" if we don't pressure Ukraine to accept it.
You aren't the only one. It's been suggested multiple times before - but it would only result in another temporary lull until Russia kicked things off again x years later...
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and there are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots too, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
It is worth noting that Ukrainians in the East did vote, overwhelmingly, to leave Russia in 1991.
Now, opinions can change in 30 years. And it is certainly the case that those in the East of Ukraine have historically preferred to look East, rather than West.
But - if I can use an analogy - most Eastern Ukrainians look at Russia the way most Remainers look at Germany or France. They see it as a natural ally, and they would look future peaceful cooperation.
But if German and French troops landed in Kent those Remainers (with a very few exceptions) wouldn't be joining the invaders, they would be fighting to force them out.
And that's what has happened in Ukraine.
Putin assumed that those people who wanted more links with Russia, actually wanted to be part of Russia. And that's simply not true.
And there are good reasons, both material and moral. The moral first - the modern conquest of a lot of the developing world by Britain has shaped the world we are in now. India, pre conquest, held ~ a third of the worlds value in trade and industry, when we left it was 2%. This was sucked out of India and given to us. The benefits of conquest, via government and crown, surround us today and are part of why certain international inequities still exist.
This is an extremely tenuous claim and an abuse of history. The industrialisation of Western Europe and Japan and the growth of the United States would have dramatically reduced India's share of global GDP with or without the British Raj.
I recommend Shashi Tharoor's "Inglorious Empire" - it outlines the economics quite well; for instance the destruction of the shipbuilding capability in India directly allowed Britain to make more money building ships. Wealth was extracted to fund industrialisation, and existing industry was destroyed to allow markets to be dominated by British industry instead.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and they are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
Do you think that a referendum held next week, at a few days’ notice, in an area that’s currently under the control of the Russian military, and from which Ukranians have been forcibly deported, could possibly be anything approaching ‘free and fair’ in any sense of those words?
No I absolutely don't. Its clear this is a brutal, evil and completely illegal annexation. Its just very depressing nobody ever bothered to ask the people who live in these regions on Russia's borders what they want.
I'm guessing they would vote decisively in favour of staying with Ukraine, but I don't know the territory.
That referendum would be like holding Sindy2 with Hyufd manning the ballot boxes and counting the votes. An armed Hyufd.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and they are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
Do you think that a referendum held next week, at a few days’ notice, in an area that’s currently under the control of the Russian military, and from which Ukranians have been forcibly deported, could possibly be anything approaching ‘free and fair’ in any sense of those words?
No I absolutely don't. Its clear this is a brutal, evil and completely illegal annexation. Its just very depressing nobody ever bothered to ask the people who live in these regions on Russia's borders what they want.
I'm guessing they would vote decisively in favour of staying with Ukraine, but I don't know the territory.
When is this imaginary 'nobody ever bothered' thing supposed to have happened ?
The war in the Donbas followed straight on from the Maidan revolution which established the current political settlement in Ukraine. Russian armed separatists had no interest in holding any such vote at the time (prior opinion polls had indicated the region wanted to stay part of Ukraine). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022)
It's depressing that Russia can't let go of its previous vassal territories, but here we are.
This seems like a stupid question but if a majority of the people of Luhansk and Donetsk voted to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation in a free and fair election, isn't there a strong argument they should be allowed to?
Yes with respect its a stupid question, there's no such thing as a free and fair election when the Russian military are occupying the lands, and how are refugees currently temporarily kicked out of their homes supposed to vote in that election?
Once the land is liberated and back in Ukrainian jurisdiction and peaceful and stable then a free and fair election may be possible, not until then.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and there are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots too, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
It is worth noting that Ukrainians in the East did vote, overwhelmingly, to leave Russia in 1991.
Now, opinions can change in 30 years. And it is certainly the case that those in the East of Ukraine have historically preferred to look East, rather than West.
But - if I can use an analogy - most Eastern Ukrainians look at Russia the way most Remainers look at Germany or France. They see it as a natural ally, and they would look future peaceful cooperation.
But if German and French troops landed in Kent those Remainers (with a very few exceptions) wouldn't be joining the invaders, they would be fighting to force them out.
And that's what has happened in Ukraine.
Putin assumed that those people who wanted more links with Russia, actually wanted to be part of Russia. And that's simply not true.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go
Was pretty clear that she had already gone. Or was that just to me? I was out that day, and ended up following events from a pub that afternoon. Whilst drinking multiple pints of full sugar coke to try and resurrect myself.
Row 14 Joe and his economy randomiser.
He's Carter but without the nice bloke bit
Then, alphabetic order is your friend. Make America Great Again....that's all it took.
Plus I like the idea of military strikes on attempted referendums.
First reportage here from @Scott_xP https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4104103/#Comment_4104103
"Something odd going on. Zahawi urgently briefing people in the chamber"
Second report is here, also from @Scott_xP
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4104111/#Comment_4104111
"Something big is happening in the Commons - Keir Starmer is on his feet but has just been passed a note via his deputy Angela Rayner. SNP bench also made aware. A lot of very glum faces
London Bridge??"
So there it was. The much attacked "Scott n'Paste" got the scoop.
Yeah I get that but is Ukraine any more likely to hold a proper plebiscite in these provinces than Russia? I don't think so. Ukraine wants this land for itself. Ditto crimea. Which is fine, but let's have it right.
The thing is, there are some ethnic Russians in these areas, and there are probably plenty of Ukrainian patriots too, but the chance of the matter of which jurisdiction they live under being settled either way than via the muzzle of a gun seems pretty remote.
Take the Koh-i-Noor and other diamonds within the Crown Jewels. It's pretty easy to admit most of that was taken at the point of a gun, even if officially they were signed over or gifted to us, and it's pretty easy to say they should go back to the countries we took them from.
As for her position on abolition, I only quote Eric Williams: "British historians write almost as if Britain had introduced Negro slavery solely for the satisfaction of abolishing it.”
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4085959#Comment_4085959
Scott did well tactically.
The helicopter left Windsor before 7am to grab Charles, and it was only later that the other Royals started moving. So they noticed during the night and she deteriorated during the day.
We had two dozen natives
She saw off that lying cad Johnson, having been clinging on for the last few years then months to see the back of him. Then almost as soon as she shook hands with Mistress Truss she appears to have gone into a very rapid decline.
I know that very old people do have this ability to fight on and then largely switch themselves off, and that does seem to be what has happened here. No wonder Bonzo looked so unhappy having been blocked from queue-jumping in the Abbey. His removal from office was literally the Queen's dying wish...
We need polling. And LibDem bar charts.
In both cases, it became clear that that phrase meant that life support was being kept on until the family could be informed.
Re. earlier comments here, Russia already has conscription.
There are forces opposed to the Russian government that want this war to escalate, to nuclear war if they can achieve that. They are jumping for joy at the Zap plant being hit. It's unlikely to be Russian forces shelling that plant. Why would they do it? (OK I am sure a reason could be cobbled together - there's your task for this afternoon, Bart - but it doesn't seem very likely.) Wouldn't surprise me if other nuclear plants get hit too - ones in Russia. There was talk of that in relation to Chechnya some time around 1999.
Also re. earlier comments, as far as I'm aware both the US and Britain continue to import Russian uranium.
Today's irregular verb:
* We're imposing sanctions
* They're weaponising trade
Poland would be a key contender - clearly they have the capability to obtain nuclear weapons (big enough economy, rich(ish) and have domestic nuclear power. They also feel threatened by Russia. If you're confident only conventional weapons will be used to attack you, then you can easily rely on NATO (or other major power guarantors). If it goes nuclear, your conventional military is suddenly not so much of a deterrent and your backers are less likely to want to get into a nuclear confrontation. So having your own weapons suddenly becomes much more important.
Who else might go nuclear? Turkey? Taiwan? Japan? South Korea?
I'd have thought the Baltic states probably lack the capability.
How to you hold a referendum when a big chunk of the Electorate has been taken out of the country by the invading forces?
Plus all the people driven out between 2014 and now.
I can’t find one. If he withdraws that’s a defeat and he will be Gaddafi’d. If he carries on as is, Russia will lose slowly, and the endpoint is the same for him, only worse as the Russian army will be minced further
He’s bleeding out. Retreat is not an option. He has to attack. That means mobilisation or WMD (of some kind) - or both
What we need to do is to stiffen the resolve of other European countries, and to ensure arms and ammunition factories are working, and that the flow of munitions to Ukraine continues.
So long as this "club" has no power (i.e. it is not an organization to which members are treaty bound), then we should go, and we should use it to bang on the table to make sure that everyone realises that it is in Europe's interest for Russia to be driven out of Ukraine.
Ze German border guards were extremely thorough. Checking that everyone could prove a valid reason for travel, accommodation, funds, a return ticket. Romanian student in front of me had to show accreditation for the course he was doing. I had to show my boarding card for my onward flight.
Entertainingly it was the same 40 minutes later on the way out. Where had I come from. Where was I going. What was the purpose of my 40 minutes in Germany? Even without Brexit, we would have been stuck in that. And once their new Schengen biometrics faff starts the queues will be even longer for your first visit as you have fingerprints done and an iris scan and an anal probe.
I'm guessing they would vote decisively in favour of staying with Ukraine, but I don't know the territory.
Japan and South Korea can both go nuclear in hours. So it is said. They have the capability in place. You can understand why
Edit: it's worth quoting Foxy's response to my "she's got bone cancer" comment in full:
"I think osteoporosis of the spine with crush fractures. She has become noticeably shorter and more hunched. Really quite painful to travel."
Er no or maybe, but bone cancer it was.
On the day I am happy to agree Scott called it first.
Your welcome.
Then he sits back and waits for Trump to give him the rest on a plate in 2024.
So no, a referendum of people there right now is totally inappropriate - which is exactly why the enemy is proposing it.
Rather like ‘no fly zone’, it’s something that can be made to sound reasonable at first glance, while meaning something very different in practice.
London Bridge had a whole book of protocols for the BBC and other key broadcasters. Which uniquely was obviously in effect that afternoon.
The buildings they were storing ballots and equipment in had lots of "Lucky Strike" accidents. As did some of the (attempted) organisers.
No shit, Sherlock !
Johnson left office two weeks ago.
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1572235839450615809
The speed and angle of her descent is already spectacular...
I remember in my German GCSE oral, I had to role play buying four stamps (Briefmarken) for sending mail to the UK. I managed 'vier Brieftragen fur England bitte' - 'four postmen for England please'.
Still got an A though. God knows how.
But the question is whether - outside the use of nuclear weapons - Russia can escalate. Adding poorly clothed, poorly armed conscripts to the meat grinder in Eastern Ukraine, where they will die by the tens of thousands, does not obviously strengthen Putin.
And it will mean that the Russians need to continue to pull experienced troops from other parts of their Empire, because you can't just send new conscripts.
Plus there's the continued issue of logistics. Pretty much all the European arms companies have factories working at capacity to replace munitions sent to Ukraine. We can do that. Russia, on the other hand, finds that much harder. For a start, their economy is only the size of Spain's, and secondly their arms industry depends on imports. The fact that they've needed to go begging to the North Koreans for artillery shells tells you that supplies there are far from secure.
All the talk has been a long and protracted war. Maybe it will be quicker than that.
Implosion has gone from the frontiers of science to something that is explosives engineering now. The equipment to test and verify a design is widespread - high speed X-ray systems for one. Modern computing power makes the design of implosion systems relatively simple.
You would probably go straight to a two point design these days - maybe even flying plate (aka air lens) system.
A single stage design, with plutonium, could get up to 200Kt. IIRC the French pushed it that far. If you had enriched uranium you produce some rather dangerous designs up to a megaton - more probably half a megaton. See the Mk 18....
200Kt is into the modern strategic warhead playing field.
Save that the G1098 stores are down one Queen's Company Colour, The Royal Standard Of The Regiment.
There are ~7 million refugees in Europe from Ukraine, which (guestimate) is something like 20% of the entire Ukraine electorate) in addition to however many have been deported to Russia (minus any deportees who eg escaped to Finland over the couple of still-open border points).
Ukraine is Ukraine, and the people who want to live in Russia can return to Russia. It’s a big place Russia, there’s room for everyone.
On the previous Friday, I heard from a dfferent source that "the Queen is not leaving Balmoral".
But that ignores the fact that he’s losing the war. And Ukraine is not going to stop fighting to retake
its territory as long as it has western support
He needs to change the facts on the ground
The standards of programming at Channel 4 were best when it worked as the genuinely private/public interest combination it was intended to be, in the much less ideological civil service and administrative climate of the late '70s and early '80s.
It was subsidised via ITV to be non-commercial, highbrow and community-minded, but also founded to boost the UK's independent production sector, and carried its own advertising too. The idiotic Broadcasting Act of 1990 got rid of both Channel 4's original structure and this as well, taking about five years to feed through - and also abolished the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which kept the ITV companies producing some higher-quality and public interest programming. All regulation was bad, much as Liz Truss thinks.
He told me about a friend of his - staunch leaver - who in a similar situation had a go at the border guards, telling them they were jealous of Brexit and that they were discriminating against the British. Apparently my dad's mate enjoyed the encounter. A pleasant righteous anger.
Brexit's just gonna keep on giving whatever side you're on.
Or is a old-school "plebiscite" good enough for you? Manged say by these Putin-loving MAGA-manics:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/09/06/new-surveillance-video-shows-georgia-fake-elector-helping-trump-operatives-breach-voting-data/?sh=73992cc5e760
All of those countries have domestic nuclear power. All have the technical capacity.
The pressure on Russia from China will be immense, including (one would surmise) the threat of sanctions every bit as severe as those from the West.
That sounds like a plausible time - not only because of the specificity, but also the other timings of the day. At 13:30, the media were told that the ‘bridge was not down’, but were still putting on their black ties. It appears clear that the message at midday suggested the event was very much imminent. The King’s flight was scrambled before 7am, so something had obviously happened overnight.
And there are good reasons, both material and moral. The moral first - the modern conquest of a lot of the developing world by Britain has shaped the world we are in now. India, pre conquest, held ~ a third of the worlds value in trade and industry, when we left it was 2%. This was sucked out of India and given to us. The benefits of conquest, via government and crown, surround us today and are part of why certain international inequities still exist.
Secondly, and more realpolitik, if post Brexit UK wants to make friends, some of these more "symbolic" reparations could be a good way of building political capital abroad without the systemic reparations (which I am still in favour of).
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1572236794535493632?s=20&t=rcabpQtnCmkVqwZkUJJ3eA
* I know.
There are some on here writing Truss's political obituary less than two weeks into her premiership and may in the next 12 months or more find that they may be very disappointed
Of course no conservative leader could satisfy your lust to re-join the EU but then it seems none of the main parties share your desire, so it looks like you are destined for years in despair
That must have been quite some operation, eh, "deporting" so many people against their will? I wonder why they did it. Must have used a lot of resources that could have been used in fighting the war. Ah, irrationality!
Are you completely ignorant of the fact that a large proportion of the population of the Donbas view themselves as Russian and not Ukrainian? Which way would you run if you were Russian?
Russia can then claim victory at home.
Dodgy referendums to wave as a figleaf, nuclear sabre-rattling (yet again) as a threat, telling their allies that they are eager for peace.
Then they offer peace on the current front lines and demand of us "Why don't you want peace?" if we don't pressure Ukraine to accept it.
Dr Mike Martin 🔶
@ThreshedThought
Russian mobilisation.
Chill everyone
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1572236794535493632
Now, opinions can change in 30 years. And it is certainly the case that those in the East of Ukraine have historically preferred to look East, rather than West.
But - if I can use an analogy - most Eastern Ukrainians look at Russia the way most Remainers look at Germany or France. They see it as a natural ally, and they would look future peaceful cooperation.
But if German and French troops landed in Kent those Remainers (with a very few exceptions) wouldn't be joining the invaders, they would be fighting to force them out.
And that's what has happened in Ukraine.
Putin assumed that those people who wanted more links with Russia, actually wanted to be part of Russia. And that's simply not true.
The war in the Donbas followed straight on from the Maidan revolution which established the current political settlement in Ukraine. Russian armed separatists had no interest in holding any such vote at the time (prior opinion polls had indicated the region wanted to stay part of Ukraine).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022)
It's depressing that Russia can't let go of its previous vassal territories, but here we are.