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.
Your welcome.
Pretty unremarkable "calling" given anyone on PB at the time was also watching parkiament live and could see for themselves.
Odd argument. In happier news I have secured a sample of the alleged Nyetimber 2010 from the local supermarket.
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.
And his tanks would have already taken the Borders.
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.
In addition: the government in the two breakaway states have been rather... nasty to their local populations. And as we've seen this year, they are more than willing to send every able-bodied and disabled-body man to the front lines. I can imagine a few people who quite like Russia *not* liking what has happened since 2014.
Oh, and apparently the referendums are going to be held electronically...
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.
I still suspect anybody organising such plebiscites would have a series of unfortunate gardening accidents....
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).
Do you think if symbolic reparations are paid, recipient of symbolic reparations will go 'ah, great, we can be friends now'? Or do you think they will go 'ah, well that shows you're guilty - and surely you can afford more than that - for ever'?
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
So what do you think is going to happen after he uses a tactical nuke ?
You don't appear to have thought further than that. I think it quite likely that Putin has given it some thought, though, and the likely answers aren't very positive for him.
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.
Before there's peace there's got to be an armistice. What lines would you have an armistice on if not (give or take a few small areas being exchanged) the current ones?
I see drakeford and his mob are depressingly going to tax overnight stays in Wales - Such a friendly country it will become
What's 'go away state_go_away' in Welsh?
When you're an international hotspot that the world is clamouring to visit, like Uluru or Venice or Blaenau Ffestiniog, you can pretty much write your own rules.
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)
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.
We don't really need to imagine. It's exactly what's slowly happening in Northern Ireland as British actions on the NIP which are orders of magnitude less destructive than the LNR and DNR mafia takeover of Eastern Ukraine since 2014 slowly turn the NI population away from unionism.
“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.
Hussein survived for more than a decade after his army was forced out of Kuwait, and only came to his sticky end because he was unlucky enough to see the son of the US President who hadn't seen the back of him, elected to the White House with a grudge to finish the job.
Putin can survive defeat in Ukraine. He's more likely to survive if he starts working out how to do so, rather than remain distracted with how to win an unwinnable war.
Andrew Roth @Andrew__Roth · 2h Just saw Russian air ticket site @aviasales has an option for destination: "Wherever I can go". It's definitely getting a workout today as many fearing again that Putin is about to announce mobilization and close the borders.
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.
Have you read anything by Tirthankar Roy on the economic history of India? He's a genuine scholar rather than a politician.
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.
My hunch is a severe stroke. No way back, but life continues for several hours. And the person suffering the stroke is 'comfortable' since they are unconscious.
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.
Before there's peace there's got to be an armistice. What lines would you have an armistice on if not (give or take a few small areas being exchanged) the current ones?
Easy. Any armistice should be on the pre-2014 borders.
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...
I know it's been suggested by commentators - but this looks like Russia is going to go hard on this particular option now.
It wouldn't be sensible, I agree - it'd just be a pause - but it looks more like they're going to push for it than ever before. I don't think they've officially offered "Peace on current lines" before. Have they?
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.
Yes, as always in war logistics are the key. If the Russians had lots of useable kit they would not be wasting men with 1970s to 1980s aged vehicles from store at the moment. Its fantastic that the Ukranians have captured so many tanks around Kharkiv but how many of them were just incapable of moving? I suspect most.
If they were capable of producing such kit in material numbers then we would be seeing better and better equipped units on the front line as we are seeing from Ukraine. For Russia we are seeing the opposite. More men, poorly trained and not equipped is no way to win this war. Russia have lost, all that remains uncertain is how much of a price they are willing to try to inflict for that defeat and how long this casual destruction of the forces deployed in the Ukraine will be sustained.
Oh, and whether that psychopath in the Kremlin is allowed to take the world with him.
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
So what do you think is going to happen after he uses a tactical nuke ?
You don't appear to have thought further than that. I think it quite likely that Putin has given it some thought, though, and the likely answers aren't very positive for him.
The Trump in 2025 is an interesting point. Ukr has to win the war totally by then or they could well find Trump pulls the arms shipments and they are far, far more on their own.
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.
Your welcome.
Pretty unremarkable "calling" given anyone on PB at the time was also watching parkiament live and could see for themselves.
Odd argument. In happier news I have secured a sample of the alleged Nyetimber 2010 from the local supermarket.
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.
Yes, that’s exactly what they’re planning. Putin is looking for a fig-leaf, to suggest to his domestic audience that Ukranian push-back is an attack on Russian territory, in order to justify a full-scale mobilisation within Russia, and a formal declaration of war against Ukraine.
That is a bum point. Trickle down theory which is shit says that the portion the uberrich retain gets spent in Ther Community, to everyone's benefit. Truss's theory which is also shit is that the portion they pay in tax will grow and benefit Ther Community.
How are we all feeling about being told to suck up higher energy bills for Ukraine.
The alternative is genocide for lower bills. It's not hard to figure out what the right thing to do is.
What about more expensive marmalade for an eradication of Al Shabab?
British sugar, Spanish oranges, where do AS impinge on the supply chain?
@glw was talking about the "right thing to do". I didn't realise it was just simple naked self-interest which we seem not to be worrying about with our higher fuel bills.
Like Richard Sherriff this morning saying that to avoid war with Russia we need to go to war with Russia.
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
So what do you think is going to happen after he uses a tactical nuke ?
You don't appear to have thought further than that. I think it quite likely that Putin has given it some thought, though, and the likely answers aren't very positive for him.
The Trump in 2025 is an interesting point. Ukr has to win the war totally by then or they could well find Trump pulls the arms shipments and they are far, far more on their own.
This is a race against time.
If he's relying on Trump, then he's SOOL. And it very likely indeed that this will be over before then, in any event.
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.
That's an extremely weak analogy, given that there's been a Russian-backed insurgency on the go there for several years. Yes the invasion is a dramatic escalation, but it's not like people haven't already been fighting and dying.
“But when you are invited, go and sit down in the best place, so that when he who invited you comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, LOCATION IS EVERYTHING.’ Then you will have glory in owning the losers.” https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1572183361694613505
I think she is very cutesie, particularly when she refers to the Irish Taoiseach as the TeaSock.
She is quite convivial, but then when she is caught out in interview her face changes to rage. I suspect if one were to throw water over her she transforms from fluffy bunny to Gremlin.
“So what do you think is going to happen after he uses a tactical nuke ?
You don't appear to have thought further than that. I think it quite likely that Putin has given it some thought, though, and the likely answers aren't very positive for him.”
++++
There are no obviously positive answers for Putin. That’s my point. The invasion was a catastrophic blunder from the start - as most of us on here noted at the time
I’m trying to put myself in his paranoid mind. He needs the war to stop - or seriously pause - in a way he can sell as a victory. Defeat, I reckon, wouid be the end of him. And maybe a horrible end
To win the war he needs Ukraine to give up fighting, probably because the west pressures them and withdraws it’s support
So imagine that he drops a tactical nuke on snake island and says This will continue until the west backs down
Would we blink first? I think it’s quite likely
Ukraine is then forced to the table, and a compromise. Putin keeps the occupied territories and Crimea. That’s a victory of sorts for him. Albeit at a terrible price
The war ends. Everyone is relieved as well as ashamed (It would probably kick off again a few years down the line)
That gets Putin out of his immediate problems. Maybe
No doubt to announce the referendum results in advance.
It is expected that Russian president Vladimir Putin makes a special statement on Ukraine today at 20-00 msk, after that a statement from minister of defence Sergey Shoygu is expected https://twitter.com/ElenaChernenko/status/1572238820493627399
I think she is very cutesie, particularly when she refers to the Irish Taoiseach as the TeaSock.
She is quite convivial, but then when she is caught out in interview her face changes to rage. I suspect if one were to throw water over her she transforms from fluffy bunny to Gremlin.
We saw a hint of that when her regional pay plan got binned and it was our fault for misunderstanding it.
The trouble with being PM is that, even when you do well, a lot of things go badly, and I'm not convinced that Truss has the inner peace to accept that or the acting chops to hide it.
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.
Berlin airport does connections, but only within the same zone. You cannot transfer flights from non-schengen to schengen, all incoming non-schengen pax need to be cleared through the border.
So the only exit route from our Terminal 2 gate was through the German border. Whilst there were e-gates for EU passports, that clearly only applied to Schengen passports. Almost the entire queue were Romanian EU citizens having to queue in the all passports interrogation line.
I had 3 hours to change plane. Was plenty, even with the queue. And had it not been I would have Phil and Holly'd the queue and explained I had a plane to catch. As the focus of German plod was keeping people out of their country, that I was to immediately leave again was something they liked.
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.
The Berlin queue was *nothing* to do with Brexit. It was entirely about Schengen and non-Schengen. The difference is that whilst the Romanians were happy to queue, so many leavers insist that the UK be given special treatment because we hold all the cards.
Its no surprise that a trade deal is now out of contention. What is also not a surprise is the "we will get a US trade deal" advovcates now insist they never said that. Presumably the people posting screenshots of them doing that demonstrating they are lying are just embittered remainers who won't accept they lost.
Its no surprise that a trade deal is now out of contention. What is also not a surprise is the "we will get a US trade deal" advovcates now insist they never said that. Presumably the people posting screenshots of them doing that demonstrating they are lying are just embittered remainers who won't accept they lost.
It’s quite funny, really.
It’s all about the much less ambitious CPTPP now, along with those deals with Australia and NZ which turn out to be - if anything - net negatives for the UK economy.
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.
Before there's peace there's got to be an armistice. What lines would you have an armistice on if not (give or take a few small areas being exchanged) the current ones?
The Armistice should be along the borders that Russia agreed to respect in the Budapest Memorandum. With, as you say, perhaps a few adjustments.
Otherwise the rule of international law is gone for a burton. And Putin is incentivised to repeat the performance.
“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?
Hmmm. The numbers support my comment.
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!
1 - The US State Department have estimated that the number of citizens forcibly deported by Russia is between 0.9 and 1.6 million. As we know the US (and UK) Govts have put out the best information throughout the conflict.
2 - The numbers are consistent with the 'refugee' numbers given to the UN by the Russian Govt, which are that 2.6 million have gone to Russia. https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine
3 - It is a large operation, yes - but Russia have invaded with just under 200k troops, and have a proxy army in UA, and have spent the time since 2014 building up databases of people to target, and are recorded extensively as having targeted people identifying with Ukraine in the occupied territories. When you have that many people with guns, it is less difficult than you suggest.
4 - We know that Putin's is more than a little irrational, and more than a little delusional.
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?
5 - I'm completely aware that in 1991 86.36% of the votes cast in Luhansk Oblast, and 83.90% of the votes cast in Donetsk Oblast, and 54.19% of the votes cast in Crimea ASSR, went in favour of Ukrainian Independence rather than continuing with Russia.
Those numbers suggest that your "Russian not Ukrainian" assertion is a tissue of b*ll*cks.
6 - We also know from evidence on the ground that Russian speakers are identifying far more with Ukraine since Putin invaded in Feb 2022.
7 - This is hardly a surprise given that the Russian Army has wiped out many thousands of Russian speakers, and is treating Russian-speaking cities such as Mariupol in the way that Hitler dealt with Stalingrad and Leningrad.
You have evidence to support your position, @Dynamo ?
Comments
Odd argument. In happier news I have secured a sample of the alleged Nyetimber 2010 from the local supermarket.
Oh, and apparently the referendums are going to be held electronically...
You don't appear to have thought further than that. I think it quite likely that Putin has given it some thought, though, and the likely answers aren't very positive for him.
The nuclear bomb has saved more lives then every Nobel Peace Prize winner combined.
Recorded, quite literally, while the US President she is about to meet, tweets this:
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1572238135525838850 https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1572244208697905152/photo/1
Putin can survive defeat in Ukraine. He's more likely to survive if he starts working out how to do so, rather than remain distracted with how to win an unwinnable war.
Andrew Roth
@Andrew__Roth
·
2h
Just saw Russian air ticket site
@aviasales
has an option for destination: "Wherever I can go". It's definitely getting a workout today as many fearing again that Putin is about to announce mobilization and close the borders.
This was how my mother in law departed.
It wouldn't be sensible, I agree - it'd just be a pause - but it looks more like they're going to push for it than ever before. I don't think they've officially offered "Peace on current lines" before. Have they?
If they were capable of producing such kit in material numbers then we would be seeing better and better equipped units on the front line as we are seeing from Ukraine. For Russia we are seeing the opposite. More men, poorly trained and not equipped is no way to win this war. Russia have lost, all that remains uncertain is how much of a price they are willing to try to inflict for that defeat and how long this casual destruction of the forces deployed in the Ukraine will be sustained.
Oh, and whether that psychopath in the Kremlin is allowed to take the world with him.
This is a race against time.
ECO22 Berlin: Nicholas Hawker pitches First Light Fusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjh1TCt4v00&t=24s
Like Richard Sherriff this morning saying that to avoid war with Russia we need to go to war with Russia.
And it very likely indeed that this will be over before then, in any event.
Meanwhile on Russian state TV: State Duma deputy Andrey Gurulyov threatened Britain with nuclear strikes.
Host Olga Skabeeva said that Russia should have conducted a nuclear strike on Monday, since many important people were in attendance for the Queen's funeral.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1572087951416336385
She has so far scored the unique achievement of making Sir Keir Royale look both charismatic and sensible in comparison. An odd choice by the Tories.
About a funeral – what a petty, uncharitable man.
A Trump re-write of Luke,
“But when you are invited, go and sit down in the best place, so that when he who invited you comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, LOCATION IS EVERYTHING.’ Then you will have glory in owning the losers.”
https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1572183361694613505
She is quite convivial, but then when she is caught out in interview her face changes to rage. I suspect if one were to throw water over her she transforms from fluffy bunny to Gremlin.
“So what do you think is going to happen after he uses a tactical nuke ?
You don't appear to have thought further than that. I think it quite likely that Putin has given it some thought, though, and the likely answers aren't very positive for him.”
++++
There are no obviously positive answers for Putin. That’s my point. The invasion was a catastrophic blunder from the start - as most of us on here noted at the time
I’m trying to put myself in his paranoid mind. He needs the war to stop - or seriously pause - in a way he can sell as a victory. Defeat, I reckon, wouid be the end of him. And maybe a horrible end
To win the war he needs Ukraine to give up fighting, probably because the west pressures them and withdraws it’s support
So imagine that he drops a tactical nuke on snake island and says This will continue until the west backs down
Would we blink first? I think it’s quite likely
Ukraine is then forced to the table, and a compromise. Putin keeps the occupied territories and Crimea. That’s a victory of sorts for him. Albeit at a terrible price
The war ends. Everyone is relieved as well as ashamed (It would probably kick off again a few years down the line)
That gets Putin out of his immediate problems. Maybe
It is expected that Russian president Vladimir Putin makes a special statement on Ukraine today at 20-00 msk, after that a statement from minister of defence Sergey Shoygu is expected
https://twitter.com/ElenaChernenko/status/1572238820493627399
She doesn't seem to have found it too difficult as far as I can see.
The trouble with being PM is that, even when you do well, a lot of things go badly, and I'm not convinced that Truss has the inner peace to accept that or the acting chops to hide it.
So the only exit route from our Terminal 2 gate was through the German border. Whilst there were e-gates for EU passports, that clearly only applied to Schengen passports. Almost the entire queue were Romanian EU citizens having to queue in the all passports interrogation line.
I had 3 hours to change plane. Was plenty, even with the queue. And had it not been I would have Phil and Holly'd the queue and explained I had a plane to catch. As the focus of German plod was keeping people out of their country, that I was to immediately leave again was something they liked.
It’s all about the much less ambitious CPTPP now, along with those deals with Australia and NZ which turn out to be - if anything - net negatives for the UK economy.
Otherwise the rule of international law is gone for a burton. And Putin is incentivised to repeat the performance.
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!
1 - The US State Department have estimated that the number of citizens forcibly deported by Russia is between 0.9 and 1.6 million. As we know the US (and UK) Govts have put out the best information throughout the conflict.
Estimates from a variety of sources, including the Russian government, indicate that Russian authorities have interrogated, detained, and forcibly deported between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens, including 260,000 children, from their homes to Russia – often to isolated regions in the Far East.
https://www.state.gov/russias-filtration-operations-forced-disappearances-and-mass-deportations-of-ukrainian-citizens/
2 - The numbers are consistent with the 'refugee' numbers given to the UN by the Russian Govt, which are that 2.6 million have gone to Russia.
https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine
3 - It is a large operation, yes - but Russia have invaded with just under 200k troops, and have a proxy army in UA, and have spent the time since 2014 building up databases of people to target, and are recorded extensively as having targeted people identifying with Ukraine in the occupied territories. When you have that many people with guns, it is less difficult than you suggest.
4 - We know that Putin's is more than a little irrational, and more than a little delusional.
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?
5 - I'm completely aware that in 1991 86.36% of the votes cast in Luhansk Oblast, and 83.90% of the votes cast in Donetsk Oblast, and 54.19% of the votes cast in Crimea ASSR, went in favour of Ukrainian Independence rather than continuing with Russia.
Those numbers suggest that your "Russian not Ukrainian" assertion is a tissue of b*ll*cks.
6 - We also know from evidence on the ground that Russian speakers are identifying far more with Ukraine since Putin invaded in Feb 2022.
7 - This is hardly a surprise given that the Russian Army has wiped out many thousands of Russian speakers, and is treating Russian-speaking cities such as Mariupol in the way that Hitler dealt with Stalingrad and Leningrad.
You have evidence to support your position, @Dynamo ?