There isnt a thread on the site that even tries to see anything the Govt does in a good light. It's been doom and gloom since Boris and only the death of her Majesty has obscured the gloomy threads. The site doesn't even try to be even handed, especially Cyclefree who just wants to find something she can put the boot into..... the Govt isn't great but it's not as bad as its portrayed as. Just think of the potential future Ministers in Labour and..... chunder.
I'm struggling to understand why anybody so disparaging about this site would bother to read it, or comment on it. Weird.
Well you obviously don't read the site enough. There are intelligent posters on the site who impart interesting information. It's just such a drag to trawl thro all the partisan bullshit that infects the site..
Just block bastards like me, and read HY, Barty, MM, Leon, Casino, Sandpit, Moonshine, Driver, NerysHughes, LuckyGuy, RobD., MattW. cookie, BigG, JJ, Tubbs and a host of others. There are some really nice posters here as well as the traitors.
Ignore Socialists, LibDems,Remainers, Nationalists and Russians.
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
A miss is as good as a mile.
What you mean is, having failed once, he tried again and failed again.
My Great Uncle died there on ANZAC day. His battalion took Pine Ridge, Kemal (later Ataturk) counter-attacked. The entire battalion were killed, wounded or captured. The ANZACs never retook the ridge. His war lasted 1 day of action.
It was not a well conducted operation, and explains why Churchill was not well thought of by older Australians.
OK - you know those people who suddenly flip. Well I've had that sort of day and am at that point where I need to be kept away from sharp objects.
Not only has Santander fucked up my day so that tomorrow I have to go to a branch and see if there is someone there with an IQ in double fingers who can CLOSE MY ACCOUNT. But I also have to go to Banhams who have managed to make me some spare keys that don't open the front door.
And now my dishwasher has decided not to drain. So that'll be another expense and another wasted day.
The error code is F13.
F - fucking - 13.
That just about sums up life, these days.
F13: likely to be a fault with the water softener or the hardness of the water in the machine
That probably depends on the manufacturer (Miele or Whirlpool?) but there will be lots of information out there on how to fix it.
How to videos are the one of the best things about YouTube.
Personally, I have never called anyone out to fix anything, I always attempt it myself. Much more fun, and you get to know how things are made. I also absolutely hate throwing things out and I always keep useful parts.
I have had only one failure which was a microwave with a dodgy display and a broken magnetron (you should never play with these if you don't know what you are doing in any case). Everything else has either been fixable or a major mechanical failure which is beyond economic repair.
Phones are usually a big pain the backside though, so I refuse to buy ones with soldered batteries.
Disclaimer: Some repairs do require knowledge of electrical circuitry but most do not.
I presume Putin's plan (if there is one) is to stabilise the current lines (more or less) through the winter with the aim of a renewed counter-offensive in March next year.
Mobilisation presumably just doesn't mean boots on the ground but also increases armaments production to replace the lost ordinance so it's not just more men, it's more men with replacement equipment (probably no better than before).
Come next spring, assuming nothing happens in the interim, the Russians will try again with the aim (I would guess) of inflicting a decisive defeat on the Ukraine and forcing a political change in Kyiv to a more "friendly" Government who would then invite Russian forces in for a spell.
Putin's plan is to ride, bare-chested, into the midst of those that have not seen the light of the true Putin.
Edit: Trigger, his horse, has recently been spotted in the Finland border queue.
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
I think we had this F13 fault on our Mirke dishwasher when it was quite new. It was because the inlet cable was squashed. There is not much room behind the dishwasher and it was sticking out an inch or so. We pushed it flush and in doing so squashed or kinked the inlet hose. It was a pain to fix as our floor is uneven and so not easy to pull the dishwasher out an inch or two, but if you can do it might work,it did for us. Disclaimer of liability if you hurt your back!
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
The good thing about Churchill is that he was down on attrition and big on innovation, from tanks to code-breaking. A lot of the infrastructure for our defence had been put in place under the much-maligned Chamberlain.
Chamberlain is something of a hero of mine. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what Hitler was. And he sold his reputation to buy Britain another 12 months. And boy did he use it.
I presume that the idea that he bought time his own expense is expanded upon somewhere? (If so, I'd appreciate a link). I don't really buy it though.
Essentially -
1) British re-armament started before Hitler came to power 2) Yes, you read that right 3) It was kicked off by the laying down of the pocket battleships by the government previous to Hitler. 4) When Hitler came to power, British re-armament got into high gear. 5) By 1936, the problem was finding things to spend money on, not money to spend. 6) This is because weapons are not easily substituted for, say, potato production. 7) British re-aramament was in depth. That is, we built factories for the bits to build factories to build weapons. 8) The timeline was known. Hitler would be ready for war sometime in late 1942, early 1943. 9) This was known from the planned naval expansion, which wasn't possible to hide. 10) The plan was for Britain to reach peak strength in 1942 (early). Lots of Battleships. Lots of Carriers. An airforce of heavy bombers armed with 20mm cannon, flying a 300mph, with 2000hp engines. All fighter to have 2000hp engines, 400mph, all 20 mm cannon armament. The standard anti-tank gun was to be, by then, the 17lbr. etc etc 11) Hitler started kicking the war off early - whether he believed Schacht about the collapsing German financial situation, or he was so used to following 6 by then... its's your choice really. 12) So the UK had large number of cheap and nasty weapons, which were early products of the build up - the Fairey Battle, for example. A cheap way to get bomber squadrons started. 1 pilot, 1 navigator, 1 gunner. Ready as the nucleus of a crew for a B1/39 Standard Heavy Bomber, later.
So if war had started in 1938, Britain was in a poor position. Because we were still building out the infrastructure to make weapons, and the plan was to move to mass production of the very latestweapons later. Aircraft in particular were changing fast. A vast fleet of 1937 fighters would be useless by 1939....
So the more time we had to pivot to the production phase of re-armament, early, the better.
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
The good thing about Churchill is that he was down on attrition and big on innovation, from tanks to code-breaking. A lot of the infrastructure for our defence had been put in place under the much-maligned Chamberlain.
Chamberlain is something of a hero of mine. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what Hitler was. And he sold his reputation to buy Britain another 12 months. And boy did he use it.
I presume that the idea that he bought time his own expense is expanded upon somewhere? (If so, I'd appreciate a link). I don't really buy it though.
Essentially -
1) British re-armament started before Hitler came to power 2) Yes, you read that right 3) It was kicked off by the laying down of the pocket battleships by the government previous to Hitler. 4) When Hitler came to power, British re-armament got into high gear. 5) By 1936, the problem was finding things to spend money on, not money to spend. 6) This is because weapons are not easily substituted for, say, potato production. 7) British re-aramament was in depth. That is, we built factories for the bits to build factories to build weapons. 8) The timeline was known. Hitler would be ready for war sometime in late 1942, early 1943. 9) This was known from the planned naval expansion, which wasn't possible to hide. 10) The plan was for Britain to reach peak strength in 1942 (early). Lots of Battleships. Lots of Carriers. An airforce of heavy bombers armed with 20mm cannon, flying a 300mph, with 2000hp engines. All fighter to have 2000hp engines, 400mph, all 20 mm cannon armament. The standard anti-tank gun was to be, by then, the 17lbr. etc etc 11) Hitler started kicking the war off early - whether he believed Schacht about the collapsing German financial situation, or he was so used to following 6 by then... its's your choice really. 12) So the UK had large number of cheap and nasty weapons, which were early products of the build up - the Fairey Battle, for example. A cheap way to get bomber squadrons started. 1 pilot, 1 navigator, 1 gunner. Ready as the nucleus of a crew for a B1/39 Standard Heavy Bomber, later.
So if war had started in 1938, Britain was in a poor position. Because we were still building out the infrastructure to make weapons, and the plan was to move to mass production of the very latestweapons later. Aircraft in particular were changing fast. A vast fleet of 1937 fighters would be useless by 1939....
So the more time we had to pivot to the production phase of re-armament, early, the better.
So the thesis runs.....
I'd say that Hitler was the worst example.
(Not totally in concord with that timeline, but I don't have 45 minutes to dispute it.)
Musing on taxational matters, I suspect the Kwarteng/Truss approach is to argue lower taxes equals economic growth which will create more jobs which will make up for the shortfall in tax caused by lowering the rates.
I get that - at least, I understand the theory.
Currently, at least in London and the South East, we are at full employment. If growing the economy creates more jobs, fine, the problem is there's no one to fill these new jobs. Those who are currently out of the job market have likely made a positive decision not to work so small changes in tax aren't going to entice them back.
There is an argument a lot of jobs are low productivity tasks but that's a different problem and I don't see how that is addressed by the Government's economic policies. One of our regulars was last night singing the praises of wage inflation but I presume he is too young to remember the last time we had this in the late 1980s. The disastrous pre-election Lawson Budget of 1987 led to a boom which ended, as they so often do, with inflation.
I don't see how the growth policies of Truss and Kwarteng will do anything other than continue to stimulate wage inflation and shortages in key professional areas. It's fascinating to see how the market in skilled trades in London has thinned out with a number of individuals forced to quit having lost business during the lockdowns (a side effect I hadn't anticipated).
As with so much else, the "big boys" are left to dominate the field and charge what they like - the cartelisation of the British economy is for me one of the biggest effects of the pandemic.
The Government's own figures were anticipating a deficit of just shy of £100 billion this year - that figure is now clearly out of the water. We borrowed £322 billion in 2020-21 and for all the fine words about inflation wiping out debt, the better option is not to create the debt in the first place I would argue.
Clearly, there will be a very tough public spending round for local councils this year and while JRM and others might think there are legions of diversity and equality officers out there to sack (there aren't), Councils, which have absorbed huge financial pressure in responding to Covid, will buckle if faced with further cut backs especially as they can't raise local taxes in response.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Weale "Britain's long boom under Labour was based on unsustainable consumption" and that "the budget deficit has to be closed at some point ... You cannot put it off forever on the grounds that the economy might never be able to stand it."[6]
He does sound like a sensible hawk rather than a Blanchflower, but clearly OnlyLivingBoy, Kinabalu etc will dismiss everything he has to say. 😉
Whining leftist remoaners talking down Blighty and Liz. What does this so-called "expert" know about it?
Whatever is proposed we always mustn't because a man said a thing. As sure as night follows day. I expect Blanchflower is agin too, and Cable has predicted 18 recessions by Christmas
A three-judge appeals court panel has granted the Justice Department’s request to block aspects of U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling that delayed a criminal investigation into highly sensitive documents seized from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
The panel ruled that Cannon, a Trump appointee, erred when she temporarily prevented federal prosecutors from using the roughly 100 documents — marked as classified – recovered from Trump’s estate as part of a criminal inquiry.
Trump “has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents,” the panel ruled in a 29-page decision. “Nor has he established that the current administration has waived that requirement for these documents.”
Two of the three judges on the panel, Andrew Brasher and Britt Grant, were appointed to the court by Trump. The third, Robin Rosenbaum, was appointed by President Barack Obama. In the unanimous decision, the judges declared it “self-evident” that the public interest favored allowing the Justice Department to determine whether any of the records were improperly disclosed, risking national security damage.
“For our part, we cannot discern why Plaintiff would have an individual interest in or need for any of the one-hundred documents with classification markings,” the appeals court wrote in an opinion that listed no individual judge as the author.
While Cannon speculated in her ruling that allowing investigators continued access to the documents could result in leaks of their contents, the appeals panel brushed aside that concern.
“Permitting the United States to retain the documents does not suggest that they will be released; indeed, a purpose of the United States’s efforts in investigating the recovered classified documents is to limit unauthorized disclosure of the information they contain,” the appeals judges wrote. “Not only that, but any authorized official who makes an improper disclosure risks her own criminal liability.”
he 11th Circuit’s rules appear to preclude any attempt to ask the full bench of that court to reconsider the government’s motion, but Trump could seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
Trump attorney Christopher Kise did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. . . .
It's a fun read, as are many legal judgements. The bits about the possibility of leaks, and of Trump not having an interest in having the documents returned, are indeed pretty good.
It seems like all Trump's legal defences are just bullshit distraction until the other side loses the will to live or their money. One hopes that finally will not work, though no doubt as soon as he is nominated (or even formally annouced as running) his acolytes will do all they can to say now it is time to let voters decide (everyone knows those in, or running for, office, are immune from any legal consequence).
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
The good thing about Churchill is that he was down on attrition and big on innovation, from tanks to code-breaking. A lot of the infrastructure for our defence had been put in place under the much-maligned Chamberlain.
Chamberlain is something of a hero of mine. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what Hitler was. And he sold his reputation to buy Britain another 12 months. And boy did he use it.
I presume that the idea that he bought time his own expense is expanded upon somewhere? (If so, I'd appreciate a link). I don't really buy it though.
I don't have anything as sophisticated as a source for this! But my understanding is that Chamberlain knew he hadn't achieved Peace in our Time. He knew Hitler was an untrustworthy bastard. And he knew he would suffer reputationally when he was shown to have been too credulous. Indeed, his reputation is one of an appeaser. That was the price he paid - his reputation - for giving Britain an extra year to prepare for war. And he got as much out of that year as he could. Now, had he stood up to Hitler in 1838, could the combined might of Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia have faced Germany down? Perhaps it could, inowing what we know now. But Chamberlain's intelligence was that it absolutely could not.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
That all makes sense, though that until a few weeks ago a lot of learned people were talking about a long long grind (still present, perhaps, but the suggestion was little movement for some time, when in fact things got quite dramatic), always leads me to be pessimistic.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
The good thing about Churchill is that he was down on attrition and big on innovation, from tanks to code-breaking. A lot of the infrastructure for our defence had been put in place under the much-maligned Chamberlain.
Chamberlain is something of a hero of mine. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what Hitler was. And he sold his reputation to buy Britain another 12 months. And boy did he use it.
I presume that the idea that he bought time his own expense is expanded upon somewhere? (If so, I'd appreciate a link). I don't really buy it though.
I don't have anything as sophisticated as a source for this! But my understanding is that Chamberlain knew he hadn't achieved Peace in our Time. He knew Hitler was an untrustworthy bastard. And he knew he would suffer reputationally when he was shown to have been too credulous. Indeed, his reputation is one of an appeaser. That was the price he paid - his reputation - for giving Britain an extra year to prepare for war. And he got as much out of that year as he could. Now, had he stood up to Hitler in 1838, could the combined might of Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia have faced Germany down? Perhaps it could, inowing what we know now. But Chamberlain's intelligence was that it absolutely could not.
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
The good thing about Churchill is that he was down on attrition and big on innovation, from tanks to code-breaking. A lot of the infrastructure for our defence had been put in place under the much-maligned Chamberlain.
Chamberlain is something of a hero of mine. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what Hitler was. And he sold his reputation to buy Britain another 12 months. And boy did he use it.
I presume that the idea that he bought time his own expense is expanded upon somewhere? (If so, I'd appreciate a link). I don't really buy it though.
I don't have anything as sophisticated as a source for this! But my understanding is that Chamberlain knew he hadn't achieved Peace in our Time. He knew Hitler was an untrustworthy bastard. And he knew he would suffer reputationally when he was shown to have been too credulous. Indeed, his reputation is one of an appeaser. That was the price he paid - his reputation - for giving Britain an extra year to prepare for war. And he got as much out of that year as he could. Now, had he stood up to Hitler in 1838, could the combined might of Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia have faced Germany down? Perhaps it could, inowing what we know now. But Chamberlain's intelligence was that it absolutely could not.
It could have done, but only if France had been willing to fight an aggressive war. Which they weren't. Even when Poland was invaded, they weren't.
That being said, he had no need to say 'peace for our time.' That was a terrible miscalculation and whether he believed it or not - and actually there is plenty of evidence he did - it wrecked his subsequent reputation, because it was so publicly, woefully, demonstrably wrong.
As Dutton said, he will be judged by that for all time - 'to hope otherwise is rather like hoping that one day Pontius Pilate will be judged as a successful Roman provincial administrator.'
Do not forget either his comments about 'a country far away about which we know nothing.'
And if growth is all important, we would seek to rejoin the EU.
Growth being important is precisely why we were right to leave the sclerotic EU.
The EU has failed on every objective measure to achieve growth since its formation. Indeed every single non-English speaking developed nation grew faster than the UK, or Germany, or France, or the EU as a whole since the EU's inception.
Why would you want to stick to the sclerotic failures of the past, rather than chart a bright future as a buccaneering free nation?
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
This was the statement released from Buckingham Palace a fortnight ago:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
I presume Putin's plan (if there is one) is to stabilise the current lines (more or less) through the winter with the aim of a renewed counter-offensive in March next year.
Mobilisation presumably just doesn't mean boots on the ground but also increases armaments production to replace the lost ordinance so it's not just more men, it's more men with replacement equipment (probably no better than before).
Come next spring, assuming nothing happens in the interim, the Russians will try again with the aim (I would guess) of inflicting a decisive defeat on the Ukraine and forcing a political change in Kyiv to a more "friendly" Government who would then invite Russian forces in for a spell.
Seems highly optimistic for them. Seems predicated on the assumption the Ukrainians are not up to much in the same time, or that the allies will not be rendering assistance, even as they bemoan and rage about how they are fighting the might of the entire West.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
That all makes sense, though that until a few weeks ago a lot of learned people were talking about a long long grind (still present, perhaps, but the suggestion was little movement for some time, when in fact things got quite dramatic), always leads me to be pessimistic.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
The people I am listening to were saying no such thing as a slow long grind and have said since Feb that Russia would suffer a sudden catastrophic collapse at the right moment. Leon is on the right track that a nuclear ace turns the table upside down. But I don’t think it does so in a way that favours either Mother Russia or Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. Which means they won’t do it.
There isnt a thread on the site that even tries to see anything the Govt does in a good light. It's been doom and gloom since Boris and only the death of her Majesty has obscured the gloomy threads. The site doesn't even try to be even handed, especially Cyclefree who just wants to find something she can put the boot into..... the Govt isn't great but it's not as bad as its portrayed as. Just think of the potential future Ministers in Labour and..... chunder.
Tell you what. When the Government does do something worth writing about why don't you write a thread header about it and then we can tell you all the ways it is shit.
Many of the institutions in this country are seriously flawed or completely broken. We know this and can see it every day but we are not experts and so don't know exactly how or why this is the case or what can be done to fix it. Cyclefree, along with others, does great service on this site by explaining how and why these things are broken and suggesting ways in which they might be fixed, or at least improved.
It is telling that you attack her for being against the party you have political sympathies for when more often than not the issues are much older than one or two Governments and the solutions she suggests are not political but practical and structural.
This site, and most of its contributors, is far more even handed than you deserve.
Andrew Strauss' review is off to a magnificent start with four county chairmen already saying they will vote against just six hours after publication.
The panel might have got away with their truly insane idea for the championship, because it will only upset supporters and nobody cares about them. But there is no way on earth the counties are going to accept a cut in the number of matches in the Blast. It earns them too much money.
It may be of course the ECB will ditch that as a sweetener for the rest. But that then wrecks their aim of reduced cricket.
panel? Is this just the thoughts of the one overrated man, or is his name proxy for a committee? Whatever good you could imagine a reform of the Domestic Cricket structure could bring, Strauss seemed to plump for the opposite option?
And it’s got to be done this way because England lost 4.0 in Australia? Throughout history of cricket, tours down under have been a challenge, reducing number of domestic red ball cricket is hardly going to change it being a challenge, especially when you add to the challenge by taking the wrong players and making embarrassing decisions at tosses. It’s laughable in their faces they are trying to use recent loss down under to sell this reform.
Let’s start by dealing with the elephant in the room - the hundred is the cuckoo in the domestic summer now - absolutely hated by true cricket fans - county’s bemoan their star players missing whilst they are trying to compete in a proper cricket competition, 50 over cup this season, even more laughable in Andy Strauss face he wants county sides to lose their players to hundred whilst trying to win county games? He’s bonkers.
I propose two things - kill the hundred, or play it under roofed stadiums in October.
Secondly, use weekdays for county championship and weekends for limited overs so no county loses stars for competitions they want to compete in or important money from reduced fixtures.
Betting Post. Straussy needs 12 counties to back this? He will be luck to get 2 let alone another 10.
It was a review commissioned by Strauss, carried out by a panel. Most of it is management gobbledegook saying nothing very useful and talking in general unimaginative clichés. Some was actually sensible. Changing the ball for one that doesn't swing as much might help improve bowling and batting.
In the case of the Hundred, the members' forum I went to said this to David Brown, high, loud and repeatedly. His answer was, however, that the current financial solvency of all bar three counties (Surrey, Lancashire and one unspecified but I would guess Nottinghamshire or Warwickshire) was underpinned by it, due to the loss of other income streams. So whether we liked it or not, the contracts having been signed until 2028 meant we couldn't get rid of it without destroying the whole structure of English cricket.
Realistically, the issue is the idea that all counties are not equal. Yes, we know some are stronger than others because they have more money. Surrey are rich, Leicestershire are not. That doesn't alter the fact that there is no one dominant county in England and in fact there's a huge seasonal variation. Who won most championship games last year, despite playing in, on paper, the toughest group? Gloucestershire. Who were county champions? Warwickshire. Who are going to be relegated this season? That's right - Gloucestershire and Warwickshire, although the latter may be reprieved next month when Yorkshire are declared bankrupt. Two years ago, Nottinghamshire hadn't won a match for two years. This year, had they been in Division One the same squad might well be county champions. That makes the ludicrous proposed model of promotion/relegation especially risible.
Until we accept that cricket isn't like football, where Manchester City would always beat Walsall, we'll continue to have this mess. We're also asking the wrong questions, as usual. 'Australia has six teams, and wins tests! We need six teams to win tests, then.' Rather, we should note the Australians play on good pitches. Admittedly, that's mostly to do with their weather. How can we match it? One obvious way is to have ground staff employed by somebody other than the counties, and possibly working on a rota for several nearby counties. Debacles like Chelmsford wouldn't happen if coaches couldn't order pitches to suit themselves.
But it suits the ECB, which is ultimately dominated by a few test-playing counties, to pretend otherwise. And unfortunately, as I said to David Brown, I think therefore the beginning of an improvement is to finally abolish the ECB and reconstitute it in a different form answerable directly to county members.
Most wonderful detailed reply I ever got to a [ost 🙂
So if I understand it correctly As Yorkshire got lot more money and members than minor county west, we will take your little Price baller off your hands 😈
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
This was the statement released from Buckingham Palace a fortnight ago:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
Effectively all the statements were in line with 'we do not expect HMQ to see out the day'
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
The good thing about Churchill is that he was down on attrition and big on innovation, from tanks to code-breaking. A lot of the infrastructure for our defence had been put in place under the much-maligned Chamberlain.
Chamberlain is something of a hero of mine. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what Hitler was. And he sold his reputation to buy Britain another 12 months. And boy did he use it.
I presume that the idea that he bought time his own expense is expanded upon somewhere? (If so, I'd appreciate a link). I don't really buy it though.
I don't have anything as sophisticated as a source for this! But my understanding is that Chamberlain knew he hadn't achieved Peace in our Time. He knew Hitler was an untrustworthy bastard. And he knew he would suffer reputationally when he was shown to have been too credulous. Indeed, his reputation is one of an appeaser. That was the price he paid - his reputation - for giving Britain an extra year to prepare for war. And he got as much out of that year as he could. Now, had he stood up to Hitler in 1838, could the combined might of Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia have faced Germany down? Perhaps it could, inowing what we know now. But Chamberlain's intelligence was that it absolutely could not.
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
The good thing about Churchill is that he was down on attrition and big on innovation, from tanks to code-breaking. A lot of the infrastructure for our defence had been put in place under the much-maligned Chamberlain.
Chamberlain is something of a hero of mine. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what Hitler was. And he sold his reputation to buy Britain another 12 months. And boy did he use it.
I presume that the idea that he bought time his own expense is expanded upon somewhere? (If so, I'd appreciate a link). I don't really buy it though.
I don't have anything as sophisticated as a source for this! But my understanding is that Chamberlain knew he hadn't achieved Peace in our Time. He knew Hitler was an untrustworthy bastard. And he knew he would suffer reputationally when he was shown to have been too credulous. Indeed, his reputation is one of an appeaser. That was the price he paid - his reputation - for giving Britain an extra year to prepare for war. And he got as much out of that year as he could. Now, had he stood up to Hitler in 1838, could the combined might of Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia have faced Germany down? Perhaps it could, inowing what we know now. But Chamberlain's intelligence was that it absolutely could not.
It could have done, but only if France had been willing to fight an aggressive war. Which they weren't. Even when Poland was invaded, they weren't.
That being said, he had no need to say 'peace for our time.' That was a terrible miscalculation and whether he believed it or not - and actually there is plenty of evidence he did - it wrecked his subsequent reputation, because it was so publicly, woefully, demonstrably wrong.
As Dutton said, he will be judged by that for all time - 'to hope otherwise is rather like hoping that one day Pontius Pilate will be judged as a successful Roman provincial administrator.'
Do not forget either his comments about 'a country far away about which we know nothing.'
I think my understanding that he did not believe he'd achieved PIOT is because he came home and cranked up the preparations for war.
I presume Putin's plan (if there is one) is to stabilise the current lines (more or less) through the winter with the aim of a renewed counter-offensive in March next year.
Mobilisation presumably just doesn't mean boots on the ground but also increases armaments production to replace the lost ordinance so it's not just more men, it's more men with replacement equipment (probably no better than before).
Come next spring, assuming nothing happens in the interim, the Russians will try again with the aim (I would guess) of inflicting a decisive defeat on the Ukraine and forcing a political change in Kyiv to a more "friendly" Government who would then invite Russian forces in for a spell.
Seems highly optimistic for them. Seems predicated on the assumption the Ukrainians are not up to much in the same time, or that the allies will not be rendering assistance, even as they bemoan and rage about how they are fighting the might of the entire West.
I didn't argue it was a good plan or that it would succeed. I was merely trying to offer what the Russian "thinking" might be. The corollary of that is how do the Ukrainians prize the Russians out of the land they currently occupy? In lieu of a general Russian collapse and withdrawal (by no means impossible but I'd argue improbable at this time) it will likely take a series of assaults to liberate Kherson and Mariupol while the rest of the Donbas won't be easy to capture and secure and that's before we even get to the Crimea.
Andrew Strauss' review is off to a magnificent start with four county chairmen already saying they will vote against just six hours after publication.
The panel might have got away with their truly insane idea for the championship, because it will only upset supporters and nobody cares about them. But there is no way on earth the counties are going to accept a cut in the number of matches in the Blast. It earns them too much money.
It may be of course the ECB will ditch that as a sweetener for the rest. But that then wrecks their aim of reduced cricket.
panel? Is this just the thoughts of the one overrated man, or is his name proxy for a committee? Whatever good you could imagine a reform of the Domestic Cricket structure could bring, Strauss seemed to plump for the opposite option?
And it’s got to be done this way because England lost 4.0 in Australia? Throughout history of cricket, tours down under have been a challenge, reducing number of domestic red ball cricket is hardly going to change it being a challenge, especially when you add to the challenge by taking the wrong players and making embarrassing decisions at tosses. It’s laughable in their faces they are trying to use recent loss down under to sell this reform.
Let’s start by dealing with the elephant in the room - the hundred is the cuckoo in the domestic summer now - absolutely hated by true cricket fans - county’s bemoan their star players missing whilst they are trying to compete in a proper cricket competition, 50 over cup this season, even more laughable in Andy Strauss face he wants county sides to lose their players to hundred whilst trying to win county games? He’s bonkers.
I propose two things - kill the hundred, or play it under roofed stadiums in October.
Secondly, use weekdays for county championship and weekends for limited overs so no county loses stars for competitions they want to compete in or important money from reduced fixtures.
Betting Post. Straussy needs 12 counties to back this? He will be luck to get 2 let alone another 10.
It was a review commissioned by Strauss, carried out by a panel. Most of it is management gobbledegook saying nothing very useful and talking in general unimaginative clichés. Some was actually sensible. Changing the ball for one that doesn't swing as much might help improve bowling and batting.
In the case of the Hundred, the members' forum I went to said this to David Brown, high, loud and repeatedly. His answer was, however, that the current financial solvency of all bar three counties (Surrey, Lancashire and one unspecified but I would guess Nottinghamshire or Warwickshire) was underpinned by it, due to the loss of other income streams. So whether we liked it or not, the contracts having been signed until 2028 meant we couldn't get rid of it without destroying the whole structure of English cricket.
Realistically, the issue is the idea that all counties are not equal. Yes, we know some are stronger than others because they have more money. Surrey are rich, Leicestershire are not. That doesn't alter the fact that there is no one dominant county in England and in fact there's a huge seasonal variation. Who won most championship games last year, despite playing in, on paper, the toughest group? Gloucestershire. Who were county champions? Warwickshire. Who are going to be relegated this season? That's right - Gloucestershire and Warwickshire, although the latter may be reprieved next month when Yorkshire are declared bankrupt. Two years ago, Nottinghamshire hadn't won a match for two years. This year, had they been in Division One the same squad might well be county champions. That makes the ludicrous proposed model of promotion/relegation especially risible.
Until we accept that cricket isn't like football, where Manchester City would always beat Walsall, we'll continue to have this mess. We're also asking the wrong questions, as usual. 'Australia has six teams, and wins tests! We need six teams to win tests, then.' Rather, we should note the Australians play on good pitches. Admittedly, that's mostly to do with their weather. How can we match it? One obvious way is to have ground staff employed by somebody other than the counties, and possibly working on a rota for several nearby counties. Debacles like Chelmsford wouldn't happen if coaches couldn't order pitches to suit themselves.
But it suits the ECB, which is ultimately dominated by a few test-playing counties, to pretend otherwise. And unfortunately, as I said to David Brown, I think therefore the beginning of an improvement is to finally abolish the ECB and reconstitute it in a different form answerable directly to county members.
Most wonderful detailed reply I ever got to a [ost 🙂
So if I understand it correctly As Yorkshire got lot more money and members than minor county west, we will take your little Price baller off your hands 😈
That's the idea of the ECB, although it probably won't include Yorkshire. Surrey would be more likely.
The issue is that they may not want to move to London, or Nottingham, or Manchester. In fact plenty of young cricketers have been heading the other way recently due to high house prices and family ties.
So if you denude large areas of the country of cricketing representation you may just lose them from the game to other jobs, with more security and flexibility.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
That all makes sense, though that until a few weeks ago a lot of learned people were talking about a long long grind (still present, perhaps, but the suggestion was little movement for some time, when in fact things got quite dramatic), always leads me to be pessimistic.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
The people I am listening to were saying no such thing as a slow long grind and have said since Feb that Russia would suffer a sudden catastrophic collapse at the right moment. Leon is on the right track that a nuclear ace turns the table upside down. But I don’t think it does so in a way that favours either Mother Russia or Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. Which means they won’t do it.
A tactical nuclear weapon is rather anemic - compared to the popular belief that everyone dies, to the horizon.
Lethal to a few hundred yards. FO those in the open. For those dug in, in trenches, a lot less. There's not much fallout.
Which is why the real battle plans consisted of hitting an enemy line with dozens at once.
If the defenders are annoying and dig in and spread themselves out, it is much harder to do more than make yourself spectacularly unpopular. This is a major reason why tactical nukes fell out of fashion - to make them useful, you end up with big nukes - 200Kt. And then you're into full on nuclear war....
I presume Putin's plan (if there is one) is to stabilise the current lines (more or less) through the winter with the aim of a renewed counter-offensive in March next year.
Mobilisation presumably just doesn't mean boots on the ground but also increases armaments production to replace the lost ordinance so it's not just more men, it's more men with replacement equipment (probably no better than before).
Come next spring, assuming nothing happens in the interim, the Russians will try again with the aim (I would guess) of inflicting a decisive defeat on the Ukraine and forcing a political change in Kyiv to a more "friendly" Government who would then invite Russian forces in for a spell.
Seems highly optimistic for them. Seems predicated on the assumption the Ukrainians are not up to much in the same time, or that the allies will not be rendering assistance, even as they bemoan and rage about how they are fighting the might of the entire West.
I didn't argue it was a good plan or that it would succeed. I was merely trying to offer what the Russian "thinking" might be. The corollary of that is how do the Ukrainians prize the Russians out of the land they currently occupy? In lieu of a general Russian collapse and withdrawal (by no means impossible but I'd argue improbable at this time) it will likely take a series of assaults to liberate Kherson and Mariupol while the rest of the Donbas won't be easy to capture and secure and that's before we even get to the Crimea.
They seem to be doing a pretty good job at doing so already.
I'm not sure more men in the meat grinder without any weapons, logistic or air superiority is going to prevent them from continuing to do it.
Can I just give PROFOUND thanks to the PB-er - I’m ashamed to say I forget who it was - who advised me to peel garlic cloves by first smashing them with the flat of the blade under the heel of the hand
Omg it’s like magic. They just pop out: peeled!
I now positively look forward to peeling garlic
That is the single most useful thing I have ever learned on PB. Gratitude
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
The good thing about Churchill is that he was down on attrition and big on innovation, from tanks to code-breaking. A lot of the infrastructure for our defence had been put in place under the much-maligned Chamberlain.
Chamberlain is something of a hero of mine. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what Hitler was. And he sold his reputation to buy Britain another 12 months. And boy did he use it.
I presume that the idea that he bought time his own expense is expanded upon somewhere? (If so, I'd appreciate a link). I don't really buy it though.
I don't have anything as sophisticated as a source for this! But my understanding is that Chamberlain knew he hadn't achieved Peace in our Time. He knew Hitler was an untrustworthy bastard. And he knew he would suffer reputationally when he was shown to have been too credulous. Indeed, his reputation is one of an appeaser. That was the price he paid - his reputation - for giving Britain an extra year to prepare for war. And he got as much out of that year as he could. Now, had he stood up to Hitler in 1838, could the combined might of Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia have faced Germany down? Perhaps it could, inowing what we know now. But Chamberlain's intelligence was that it absolutely could not.
It could have done, but only if France had been willing to fight an aggressive war. Which they weren't. Even when Poland was invaded, they weren't.
That being said, he had no need to say 'peace for our time.' That was a terrible miscalculation and whether he believed it or not - and actually there is plenty of evidence he did - it wrecked his subsequent reputation, because it was so publicly, woefully, demonstrably wrong.
As Dutton said, he will be judged by that for all time - 'to hope otherwise is rather like hoping that one day Pontius Pilate will be judged as a successful Roman provincial administrator.'
Do not forget either his comments about 'a country far away about which we know nothing.'
I think my understanding that he did not believe he'd achieved PIOT is because he came home and cranked up the preparations for war.
No. That's a simplistic understanding. The rearmament programme was due to be accelerated anyway due to threats identified in the Far East and ongoing tensions with Russia and Italy.
Whether he understood that Germany remained the most serious threat is a different question. The evidence I have seen is that he didn't, but that's not conclusive as I haven't seen it all. I know more about his domestic than foreign policy.
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
This was the statement released from Buckingham Palace a fortnight ago:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
Effectively all the statements were in line with 'we do not expect HMQ to see out the day'
Has there been any statement on the cause of death?
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
That all makes sense, though that until a few weeks ago a lot of learned people were talking about a long long grind (still present, perhaps, but the suggestion was little movement for some time, when in fact things got quite dramatic), always leads me to be pessimistic.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
The people I am listening to were saying no such thing as a slow long grind and have said since Feb that Russia would suffer a sudden catastrophic collapse at the right moment. Leon is on the right track that a nuclear ace turns the table upside down. But I don’t think it does so in a way that favours either Mother Russia or Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. Which means they won’t do it.
A tactical nuclear weapon is rather anemic - compared to the popular belief that everyone dies, to the horizon.
Lethal to a few hundred yards. FO those in the open. For those dug in, in trenches, a lot less. There's not much fallout.
Which is why the real battle plans consisted of hitting an enemy line with dozens at once.
If the defenders are annoying and dig in and spread themselves out, it is much harder to do more than make yourself spectacularly unpopular. This is a major reason why tactical nukes fell out of fashion - to make them useful, you end up with big nukes - 200Kt. And then you're into full on nuclear war....
A Crockett was only 20t though, a 1kt or so tactical is surely more realistic as to what they'd try? 50x the size
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
That all makes sense, though that until a few weeks ago a lot of learned people were talking about a long long grind (still present, perhaps, but the suggestion was little movement for some time, when in fact things got quite dramatic), always leads me to be pessimistic.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
The people I am listening to were saying no such thing as a slow long grind and have said since Feb that Russia would suffer a sudden catastrophic collapse at the right moment. Leon is on the right track that a nuclear ace turns the table upside down. But I don’t think it does so in a way that favours either Mother Russia or Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. Which means they won’t do it.
A tactical nuclear weapon is rather anemic - compared to the popular belief that everyone dies, to the horizon.
Lethal to a few hundred yards. FO those in the open. For those dug in, in trenches, a lot less. There's not much fallout.
Which is why the real battle plans consisted of hitting an enemy line with dozens at once.
If the defenders are annoying and dig in and spread themselves out, it is much harder to do more than make yourself spectacularly unpopular. This is a major reason why tactical nukes fell out of fashion - to make them useful, you end up with big nukes - 200Kt. And then you're into full on nuclear war....
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
This was the statement released from Buckingham Palace a fortnight ago:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
Effectively all the statements were in line with 'we do not expect HMQ to see out the day'
Has there been any statement on the cause of death?
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
This was the statement released from Buckingham Palace a fortnight ago:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
Exactly. "remains comfortable" being the key words.
There isnt a thread on the site that even tries to see anything the Govt does in a good light. It's been doom and gloom since Boris and only the death of her Majesty has obscured the gloomy threads. The site doesn't even try to be even handed, especially Cyclefree who just wants to find something she can put the boot into..... the Govt isn't great but it's not as bad as its portrayed as. Just think of the potential future Ministers in Labour and..... chunder.
Tell you what. When the Government does do something worth writing about why don't you write a thread header about it and then we can tell you all the ways it is shit.
Many of the institutions in this country are seriously flawed or completely broken. We know this and can see it every day but we are not experts and so don't know exactly how or why this is the case or what can be done to fix it. Cyclefree, along with others, does great service on this site by explaining how and why these things are broken and suggesting ways in which they might be fixed, or at least improved.
It is telling that you attack her for being against the party you have political sympathies for when more often than not the issues are much older than one or two Governments and the solutions she suggests are not political but practical and structural.
This site, and most of its contributors, is far more even handed than you deserve.
Well said. @squareroot2 is the most miserable poster on this site. Always negative. Never posts anything constructive. He must live a dreadful life to be so miserable and for which I feel very sorry for him.
I have challenged him multiple times to write a thread header if he is unhappy with what he reads, but never does. Just whines at those who do put the effort in.
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
This was the statement released from Buckingham Palace a fortnight ago:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
Effectively all the statements were in line with 'we do not expect HMQ to see out the day'
Has there been any statement on the cause of death?
Massive stroke?
Massive heart attack?
Or was it poison???
No. Stroke seems likely
Spoil sport. Would love Poirot to turn up at Balmoral.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
That all makes sense, though that until a few weeks ago a lot of learned people were talking about a long long grind (still present, perhaps, but the suggestion was little movement for some time, when in fact things got quite dramatic), always leads me to be pessimistic.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
The people I am listening to were saying no such thing as a slow long grind and have said since Feb that Russia would suffer a sudden catastrophic collapse at the right moment. Leon is on the right track that a nuclear ace turns the table upside down. But I don’t think it does so in a way that favours either Mother Russia or Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. Which means they won’t do it.
A tactical nuclear weapon is rather anemic - compared to the popular belief that everyone dies, to the horizon.
Lethal to a few hundred yards. FO those in the open. For those dug in, in trenches, a lot less. There's not much fallout.
Which is why the real battle plans consisted of hitting an enemy line with dozens at once.
If the defenders are annoying and dig in and spread themselves out, it is much harder to do more than make yourself spectacularly unpopular. This is a major reason why tactical nukes fell out of fashion - to make them useful, you end up with big nukes - 200Kt. And then you're into full on nuclear war....
A Crockett was only 20t though, a 1kt or so tactical is surely more realistic as to what they'd try? 50x the size
The effects aren't linear - not 50x more effective...
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
This was the statement released from Buckingham Palace a fortnight ago:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
Effectively all the statements were in line with 'we do not expect HMQ to see out the day'
Has there been any statement on the cause of death?
Massive stroke?
Massive heart attack?
Or was it poison???
No. Stroke seems likely
Spoil sport. Would love Poirot to turn up at Balmoral.
OK - you know those people who suddenly flip. Well I've had that sort of day and am at that point where I need to be kept away from sharp objects.
Not only has Santander fucked up my day so that tomorrow I have to go to a branch and see if there is someone there with an IQ in double fingers who can CLOSE MY ACCOUNT. But I also have to go to Banhams who have managed to make me some spare keys that don't open the front door.
And now my dishwasher has decided not to drain. So that'll be another expense and another wasted day.
The error code is F13.
F - fucking - 13.
That just about sums up life, these days.
Our dishwasher gave us error code 01 about a month ago, and multiple visits by the repair man plus 2 parts orders later it still doesn’t work. Now waiting for a new circuit board. £350 so far but we’re too far into the sink cost fallacy to replace the whole thing.
A month of manual washing up, which takes forever.
My dishwasher's element burned out some time ago, having been unreliable for a while.
I have decided I don't want to waste money repairing or replacing it so I now wash up by hand.
Which is fine for a person on his own, and certainly cheaper.
It's so disappointing when the crap associated with owning a product and repairing it involves more cost than buying it in the first place. Inkjet printers for example seem to sell for less than the cost of ink replacements.
I got myself an ink tank printer the moment the Which reports suggested that the printing was decent. Heavy front end cost - bastards! - of £700 but very cheap ink in large bottles - I've spent about £50 on refilling all 6 ink tanks after a year of moderately heavy use, some A3 paper output. Of course hoping it will manage a second year. But even then I'm laughing.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
That all makes sense, though that until a few weeks ago a lot of learned people were talking about a long long grind (still present, perhaps, but the suggestion was little movement for some time, when in fact things got quite dramatic), always leads me to be pessimistic.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
The people I am listening to were saying no such thing as a slow long grind and have said since Feb that Russia would suffer a sudden catastrophic collapse at the right moment. Leon is on the right track that a nuclear ace turns the table upside down. But I don’t think it does so in a way that favours either Mother Russia or Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. Which means they won’t do it.
A tactical nuclear weapon is rather anemic - compared to the popular belief that everyone dies, to the horizon.
Lethal to a few hundred yards. FO those in the open. For those dug in, in trenches, a lot less. There's not much fallout.
Which is why the real battle plans consisted of hitting an enemy line with dozens at once.
If the defenders are annoying and dig in and spread themselves out, it is much harder to do more than make yourself spectacularly unpopular. This is a major reason why tactical nukes fell out of fashion - to make them useful, you end up with big nukes - 200Kt. And then you're into full on nuclear war....
Aye, there's a reason other than MAD that nukes were never used in Korea or beyond, which is that actually the myth of nukes achieves more than actually using them.
When people think or act like your nukes can end the world, then its not worth fighting, but if nukes actually get used as a weapon of war and life goes on ... that's a curtain we'd rather not pull back but if it is pulled back, then the curtain can't go back up afterwards.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
That all makes sense, though that until a few weeks ago a lot of learned people were talking about a long long grind (still present, perhaps, but the suggestion was little movement for some time, when in fact things got quite dramatic), always leads me to be pessimistic.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
The people I am listening to were saying no such thing as a slow long grind and have said since Feb that Russia would suffer a sudden catastrophic collapse at the right moment. Leon is on the right track that a nuclear ace turns the table upside down. But I don’t think it does so in a way that favours either Mother Russia or Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. Which means they won’t do it.
A tactical nuclear weapon is rather anemic - compared to the popular belief that everyone dies, to the horizon.
Lethal to a few hundred yards. FO those in the open. For those dug in, in trenches, a lot less. There's not much fallout.
Which is why the real battle plans consisted of hitting an enemy line with dozens at once.
If the defenders are annoying and dig in and spread themselves out, it is much harder to do more than make yourself spectacularly unpopular. This is a major reason why tactical nukes fell out of fashion - to make them useful, you end up with big nukes - 200Kt. And then you're into full on nuclear war....
I am suddenly reminded of Starship Troopers…
That was where they got the idea, in the film.
I always like this -
"Just pop over to the bunker and get me a nuclear bomb."
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
This was the statement released from Buckingham Palace a fortnight ago:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
Effectively all the statements were in line with 'we do not expect HMQ to see out the day'
Has there been any statement on the cause of death?
Massive stroke?
Massive heart attack?
Or was it poison???
Perhaps Liz T has a poisonous handshake? Leather gloves might be a sensible precaution if she offer to shake hands with you
I've never owned a dishwasher. Washing up by hand is a domestic task I find thoroughly pleasurable.
Put that on the tinder and the world will beat a path to your door...
I believe it is suboptimal environmental practice, as a modern dishwasher uses less water
This depends on how people do their manual dishwashing or use their dishwasher. For example, I know that my Dad always pre-rinses dishes before putting them in the dishwasher. And a lot of the comparisons with manual dishwashing appear to assume that someone washing dishes has the tap on continuously.
But I don't think that either approach, if implemented sensibly, uses so much water that it is problematic.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
That all makes sense, though that until a few weeks ago a lot of learned people were talking about a long long grind (still present, perhaps, but the suggestion was little movement for some time, when in fact things got quite dramatic), always leads me to be pessimistic.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
The people I am listening to were saying no such thing as a slow long grind and have said since Feb that Russia would suffer a sudden catastrophic collapse at the right moment. Leon is on the right track that a nuclear ace turns the table upside down. But I don’t think it does so in a way that favours either Mother Russia or Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. Which means they won’t do it.
A tactical nuclear weapon is rather anemic - compared to the popular belief that everyone dies, to the horizon.
Lethal to a few hundred yards. FO those in the open. For those dug in, in trenches, a lot less. There's not much fallout.
Which is why the real battle plans consisted of hitting an enemy line with dozens at once.
If the defenders are annoying and dig in and spread themselves out, it is much harder to do more than make yourself spectacularly unpopular. This is a major reason why tactical nukes fell out of fashion - to make them useful, you end up with big nukes - 200Kt. And then you're into full on nuclear war....
A Crockett was only 20t though, a 1kt or so tactical is surely more realistic as to what they'd try? 50x the size
The effects aren't linear - not 50x more effective...
"Small hamlets in Germany are 2Kt apart"
No, sure, but it would be bigger than a Davy Crockett and presumably airburst?
There isnt a thread on the site that even tries to see anything the Govt does in a good light. It's been doom and gloom since Boris and only the death of her Majesty has obscured the gloomy threads. The site doesn't even try to be even handed, especially Cyclefree who just wants to find something she can put the boot into..... the Govt isn't great but it's not as bad as its portrayed as. Just think of the potential future Ministers in Labour and..... chunder.
Tell you what. When the Government does do something worth writing about why don't you write a thread header about it and then we can tell you all the ways it is shit.
Many of the institutions in this country are seriously flawed or completely broken. We know this and can see it every day but we are not experts and so don't know exactly how or why this is the case or what can be done to fix it. Cyclefree, along with others, does great service on this site by explaining how and why these things are broken and suggesting ways in which they might be fixed, or at least improved.
It is telling that you attack her for being against the party you have political sympathies for when more often than not the issues are much older than one or two Governments and the solutions she suggests are not political but practical and structural.
This site, and most of its contributors, is far more even handed than you deserve.
Well said. @squareroot2 is the most miserable poster on this site. Always negative. Never posts anything constructive. He must live a dreadful life to be so miserable and for which I feel very sorry for him.
I have challenged him multiple times to write a thread header if he is unhappy with what he reads, but never does. Just whines at those who do put the effort in.
You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
I presume Putin's plan (if there is one) is to stabilise the current lines (more or less) through the winter with the aim of a renewed counter-offensive in March next year.
Mobilisation presumably just doesn't mean boots on the ground but also increases armaments production to replace the lost ordinance so it's not just more men, it's more men with replacement equipment (probably no better than before).
Come next spring, assuming nothing happens in the interim, the Russians will try again with the aim (I would guess) of inflicting a decisive defeat on the Ukraine and forcing a political change in Kyiv to a more "friendly" Government who would then invite Russian forces in for a spell.
Seems highly optimistic for them. Seems predicated on the assumption the Ukrainians are not up to much in the same time, or that the allies will not be rendering assistance, even as they bemoan and rage about how they are fighting the might of the entire West.
I didn't argue it was a good plan or that it would succeed. I was merely trying to offer what the Russian "thinking" might be. The corollary of that is how do the Ukrainians prize the Russians out of the land they currently occupy? In lieu of a general Russian collapse and withdrawal (by no means impossible but I'd argue improbable at this time) it will likely take a series of assaults to liberate Kherson and Mariupol while the rest of the Donbas won't be easy to capture and secure and that's before we even get to the Crimea.
I didn't suggest you thought it was a good plan, don't be so touchy.
I've never owned a dishwasher. Washing up by hand is a domestic task I find thoroughly pleasurable.
Put that on the tinder and the world will beat a path to your door...
I believe it is suboptimal environmental practice, as a modern dishwasher uses less water
This depends on how people do their manual dishwashing or use their dishwasher. For example, I know that my Dad always pre-rinses dishes before putting them in the dishwasher. And a lot of the comparisons with manual dishwashing appear to assume that someone washing dishes has the tap on continuously.
But I don't think that either approach, if implemented sensibly, uses so much water that it is problematic.
Some years back they did a test of a professional manual dishwasher from a restaurant vs a machine. The professional dishwasher was marginally more efficient - but this was a long while back. The people running the study said that, even then, unless you were top notch, the machine would beat you. That was a decade ago, IIRC.
You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
If the reports are correct and he is directly issuing battlefield orders he'll have some of his most reliable guys with the truck launched bobbins if thats his plan.....
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
This was the statement released from Buckingham Palace a fortnight ago:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
Effectively all the statements were in line with 'we do not expect HMQ to see out the day'
Has there been any statement on the cause of death?
Massive stroke?
Massive heart attack?
Or was it poison???
Who were the last people to see her alive? I believe she had had a couple of visitors from London shortly beforehand.
Read between the lines. What they said is entirely consistent with the Queen being dead, of course they wouldn't put it on the note, but they're capable of reading between the lines too.
This was the statement released from Buckingham Palace a fortnight ago:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
Effectively all the statements were in line with 'we do not expect HMQ to see out the day'
Has there been any statement on the cause of death?
Massive stroke?
Massive heart attack?
Or was it poison???
No. Stroke seems likely
Clearly the final decline was sudden, so could have been either, but there are a number of other possibilities amongst vascular causes such as Pulmonary embolism etc.
I think we will never know, and it doesn't really matter, so fine to keep private.
You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
He could do it because he's irrational. But really think about the implications. As @williamglenn pointed out. The US could sink the Black Sea Fleet. They could conventionally bomb major cities. Every Russian citizen overseas could be detained. No one would do business. No allies of any kind. The Chinese could invade Siberia. Japanese too. Turkey? Eastern Europe? It would be a declaration of War on the entire world. No one would think any more they couldn't take them conventionally. The magic spell has gone. The alternative from there would be nuclear conflagration. I don't believe there aren't enough sensible folk in Russia to permit that.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
That all makes sense, though that until a few weeks ago a lot of learned people were talking about a long long grind (still present, perhaps, but the suggestion was little movement for some time, when in fact things got quite dramatic), always leads me to be pessimistic.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
The people I am listening to were saying no such thing as a slow long grind and have said since Feb that Russia would suffer a sudden catastrophic collapse at the right moment. Leon is on the right track that a nuclear ace turns the table upside down. But I don’t think it does so in a way that favours either Mother Russia or Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. Which means they won’t do it.
A tactical nuclear weapon is rather anemic - compared to the popular belief that everyone dies, to the horizon.
Lethal to a few hundred yards. FO those in the open. For those dug in, in trenches, a lot less. There's not much fallout.
Which is why the real battle plans consisted of hitting an enemy line with dozens at once.
If the defenders are annoying and dig in and spread themselves out, it is much harder to do more than make yourself spectacularly unpopular. This is a major reason why tactical nukes fell out of fashion - to make them useful, you end up with big nukes - 200Kt. And then you're into full on nuclear war....
A Crockett was only 20t though, a 1kt or so tactical is surely more realistic as to what they'd try? 50x the size
The effects aren't linear - not 50x more effective...
"Small hamlets in Germany are 2Kt apart"
No, sure, but it would be bigger than a Davy Crockett and presumably airburst?
Yes - the effect is more about prompt radiation - gammas and neutrons, than blast.
The difference between the W54 and, say a 1Kt device would not be that great - try https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ to see what I mean....
OK - you know those people who suddenly flip. Well I've had that sort of day and am at that point where I need to be kept away from sharp objects.
Not only has Santander fucked up my day so that tomorrow I have to go to a branch and see if there is someone there with an IQ in double fingers who can CLOSE MY ACCOUNT. But I also have to go to Banhams who have managed to make me some spare keys that don't open the front door.
And now my dishwasher has decided not to drain. So that'll be another expense and another wasted day.
The error code is F13.
F - fucking - 13.
That just about sums up life, these days.
Re: keys, maybe try using some sandpaper on them? That works sometimes.
That might get her summonsed for assault.
Oh sorry, did you mean use it on the keys?
What I find so immensely frustrating is that if I had done my job as incompetently as these bozos I'd have been out on my arse years ago. We put up with the second and third rate when really we should be giving these companies boots up their arses all day every day so that they DO THEIR FUCKING JOB instead of apologising all the time for their shit service.
Is this too much to ask?
And yes I've done the impeller thing and checked filters and all the other stuff but I am not going to spend the evening bailing water out of my spiteful dishwasher with a spoon.
I have to book a flight to Chicago and a hotel and that'll probably be another hour of misery and then I have to do some actual fee-paying work.
The only good thing that has happened to me this week is that my newly acquired American editor told me that I was a great communicator and writer and only made marginal edits to my article. And it's just as well she didn't speak to me today because the communication might have been rather too Anglo-Saxon even for her.
What is the fucking point of any of this anyway?
The reason we put up with it is because dealing with the public sector makes them seem almost competent. Spoken as on who has spent almost a week trying to persuade a council whose area I no longer live in that I dont actually owe them any money and the £2000 debt they are claiming and passed throught to an enforcement agency who were threatening to seize goods was bollocks
You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
"If I was Putin. I'd do it".
No you wouldn't because you consider consequences. I know this because during Lockdown 1 you hunkered down in Penarth as you feared the consequences of remaining in the smoke with the great unwashed.
Putin might do it because he is a **** who doesn't care about consequences or collateral damage.
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
Their supply lines are utterly compromised by HIMARS. When you have lost the battle of maximum range, you have lost the Russian way to fight warfare.
They do seem to be a gamechanger. With any luck the americans are shipping as many of the things as they can across.
Wiping out grid square with unguided weapons is one thing. With massed guided weapons, you can combine pinpoint accuracy with mass destruction. To put it another way - a HIMARS salvo can do more military damage than a moderate sized nuclear weapon lobbed onto the battlefield.
When you can get an accuracy of meters, accuracy is much more valuable than vast yields or huge numbers of weapons.
All that can save the lives of this 300K is the strong probability that Russian logistics will not be able to deliver them to the front line of anything useful before the war is over.
You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
He could do it because he's irrational. But really think about the implications. As @williamglenn pointed out. The US could sink the Black Sea Fleet. They could conventionally bomb major cities. Every Russian citizen overseas could be detained. No one would do business. No allies of any kind. The Chinese could invade Siberia. Japanese too. Turkey? Eastern Europe? It would be a declaration of War on the entire world. No one would think any more they couldn't take them conventionally. The magic spell has gone. The alternative from there would be nuclear conflagration. I don't believe there aren't enough sensible folk in Russia to permit that.
The key would be very swiftly trying to take out their nuclear capability. Not easy.
OK - you know those people who suddenly flip. Well I've had that sort of day and am at that point where I need to be kept away from sharp objects.
Not only has Santander fucked up my day so that tomorrow I have to go to a branch and see if there is someone there with an IQ in double fingers who can CLOSE MY ACCOUNT. But I also have to go to Banhams who have managed to make me some spare keys that don't open the front door.
And now my dishwasher has decided not to drain. So that'll be another expense and another wasted day.
The error code is F13.
F - fucking - 13.
That just about sums up life, these days.
Re: keys, maybe try using some sandpaper on them? That works sometimes.
That might get her summonsed for assault.
Oh sorry, did you mean use it on the keys?
What I find so immensely frustrating is that if I had done my job as incompetently as these bozos I'd have been out on my arse years ago. We put up with the second and third rate when really we should be giving these companies boots up their arses all day every day so that they DO THEIR FUCKING JOB instead of apologising all the time for their shit service.
Is this too much to ask?
And yes I've done the impeller thing and checked filters and all the other stuff but I am not going to spend the evening bailing water out of my spiteful dishwasher with a spoon.
I have to book a flight to Chicago and a hotel and that'll probably be another hour of misery and then I have to do some actual fee-paying work.
The only good thing that has happened to me this week is that my newly acquired American editor told me that I was a great communicator and writer and only made marginal edits to my article. And it's just as well she didn't speak to me today because the communication might have been rather too Anglo-Saxon even for her.
What is the fucking point of any of this anyway?
The reason we put up with it is because dealing with the public sector makes them seem almost competent. Spoken as on who has spent almost a week trying to persuade a council whose area I no longer live in that I dont actually owe them any money and the £2000 debt they are claiming and passed throught to an enforcement agency who were threatening to seize goods was bollocks
My experience as an executor was that the public sector was usually rather more efficient than the commercial sector. They did not, for instance, suddenly admit that there waqs another £11K owing when I noticed that the insurance policy seemed inconsistent with the sums already provided ...
You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
He could do it because he's irrational. But really think about the implications. As @williamglenn pointed out. The US could sink the Black Sea Fleet. They could conventionally bomb major cities. Every Russian citizen overseas could be detained. No one would do business. No allies of any kind. The Chinese could invade Siberia. Japanese too. Turkey? Eastern Europe? It would be a declaration of War on the entire world. No one would think any more they couldn't take them conventionally. The magic spell has gone. The alternative from there would be nuclear conflagration. I don't believe there aren't enough sensible folk in Russia to permit that.
The key would be very swiftly trying to take out their nuclear capability. Not easy.
If they are actually stupid enough to do a first strike then the response would have to be immediate and overwhelming to the point that they don't attempt a second.
Its not going to happen, but in the event it did the world would live on but Russia wouldn't.
Comments
Ignore Socialists, LibDems,Remainers, Nationalists and Russians.
My Great Uncle died there on ANZAC day. His battalion took Pine Ridge, Kemal (later Ataturk) counter-attacked. The entire battalion were killed, wounded or captured. The ANZACs never retook the ridge. His war lasted 1 day of action.
It was not a well conducted operation, and explains why Churchill was not well thought of by older Australians.
How to videos are the one of the best things about YouTube.
Personally, I have never called anyone out to fix anything, I always attempt it myself. Much more fun, and you get to know how things are made. I also absolutely hate throwing things out and I always keep useful parts.
I have had only one failure which was a microwave with a dodgy display and a broken magnetron (you should never play with these if you don't know what you are doing in any case). Everything else has either been fixable or a major mechanical failure which is beyond economic repair.
Phones are usually a big pain the backside though, so I refuse to buy ones with soldered batteries.
Disclaimer: Some repairs do require knowledge of electrical circuitry but most do not.
https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1572996144094793728?s=21&t=Mx3ZVPUU9PlLJB0jvbqXrg
Or is this yet another one?
The modern GOP really is a pox on America. It needs a real overhaul to become human again, like Corbyn's Labour.
1) British re-armament started before Hitler came to power
2) Yes, you read that right
3) It was kicked off by the laying down of the pocket battleships by the government previous to Hitler.
4) When Hitler came to power, British re-armament got into high gear.
5) By 1936, the problem was finding things to spend money on, not money to spend.
6) This is because weapons are not easily substituted for, say, potato production.
7) British re-aramament was in depth. That is, we built factories for the bits to build factories to build weapons.
8) The timeline was known. Hitler would be ready for war sometime in late 1942, early 1943.
9) This was known from the planned naval expansion, which wasn't possible to hide.
10) The plan was for Britain to reach peak strength in 1942 (early). Lots of Battleships. Lots of Carriers. An airforce of heavy bombers armed with 20mm cannon, flying a 300mph, with 2000hp engines. All fighter to have 2000hp engines, 400mph, all 20 mm cannon armament. The standard anti-tank gun was to be, by then, the 17lbr. etc etc
11) Hitler started kicking the war off early - whether he believed Schacht about the collapsing German financial situation, or he was so used to following 6 by then... its's your choice really.
12) So the UK had large number of cheap and nasty weapons, which were early products of the build up - the Fairey Battle, for example. A cheap way to get bomber squadrons started. 1 pilot, 1 navigator, 1 gunner. Ready as the nucleus of a crew for a B1/39 Standard Heavy Bomber, later.
So if war had started in 1938, Britain was in a poor position. Because we were still building out the infrastructure to make weapons, and the plan was to move to mass production of the very latestweapons later. Aircraft in particular were changing fast. A vast fleet of 1937 fighters would be useless by 1939....
So the more time we had to pivot to the production phase of re-armament, early, the better.
So the thesis runs.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lWJXDG2i0A
He's a good boy, loves his horsey
Loves St Nicholas II and Russia too . . .
Concerning to hear him say “there will probably be a clear run on the pound” due to UK government policy. https://twitter.com/philaldrick/status/1572989127607439362
And if growth is all important, we would seek to rejoin the EU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_knfcO_TdE
(Not totally in concord with that timeline, but I don't have 45 minutes to dispute it.)
I get that - at least, I understand the theory.
Currently, at least in London and the South East, we are at full employment. If growing the economy creates more jobs, fine, the problem is there's no one to fill these new jobs. Those who are currently out of the job market have likely made a positive decision not to work so small changes in tax aren't going to entice them back.
There is an argument a lot of jobs are low productivity tasks but that's a different problem and I don't see how that is addressed by the Government's economic policies. One of our regulars was last night singing the praises of wage inflation but I presume he is too young to remember the last time we had this in the late 1980s. The disastrous pre-election Lawson Budget of 1987 led to a boom which ended, as they so often do, with inflation.
I don't see how the growth policies of Truss and Kwarteng will do anything other than continue to stimulate wage inflation and shortages in key professional areas. It's fascinating to see how the market in skilled trades in London has thinned out with a number of individuals forced to quit having lost business during the lockdowns (a side effect I hadn't anticipated).
As with so much else, the "big boys" are left to dominate the field and charge what they like - the cartelisation of the British economy is for me one of the biggest effects of the pandemic.
The Government's own figures were anticipating a deficit of just shy of £100 billion this year - that figure is now clearly out of the water. We borrowed £322 billion in 2020-21 and for all the fine words about inflation wiping out debt, the better option is not to create the debt in the first place I would argue.
Clearly, there will be a very tough public spending round for local councils this year and while JRM and others might think there are legions of diversity and equality officers out there to sack (there aren't), Councils, which have absorbed huge financial pressure in responding to Covid, will buckle if faced with further cut backs especially as they can't raise local taxes in response.
"Britain's long boom under Labour was based on unsustainable consumption" and that "the budget deficit has to be closed at some point ... You cannot put it off forever on the grounds that the economy might never be able to stand it."[6]
He does sound like a sensible hawk rather than a Blanchflower, but clearly OnlyLivingBoy, Kinabalu etc will dismiss everything he has to say. 😉
I expect Blanchflower is agin too, and Cable has predicted 18 recessions by Christmas
It seems like all Trump's legal defences are just bullshit distraction until the other side loses the will to live or their money. One hopes that finally will not work, though no doubt as soon as he is nominated (or even formally annouced as running) his acolytes will do all they can to say now it is time to let voters decide (everyone knows those in, or running for, office, are immune from any legal consequence).
But my understanding is that Chamberlain knew he hadn't achieved Peace in our Time. He knew Hitler was an untrustworthy bastard. And he knew he would suffer reputationally when he was shown to have been too credulous. Indeed, his reputation is one of an appeaser. That was the price he paid - his reputation - for giving Britain an extra year to prepare for war. And he got as much out of that year as he could.
Now, had he stood up to Hitler in 1838, could the combined might of Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia have faced Germany down? Perhaps it could, inowing what we know now. But Chamberlain's intelligence was that it absolutely could not.
The Russian control (or lack thereof) of the air seems to be a major factor in everything, since it seems they assumed a free path there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB4A7phjS_0
That being said, he had no need to say 'peace for our time.' That was a terrible miscalculation and whether he believed it or not - and actually there is plenty of evidence he did - it wrecked his subsequent reputation, because it was so publicly, woefully, demonstrably wrong.
As Dutton said, he will be judged by that for all time - 'to hope otherwise is rather like hoping that one day Pontius Pilate will be judged as a successful Roman provincial administrator.'
Do not forget either his comments about 'a country far away about which we know nothing.'
The EU has failed on every objective measure to achieve growth since its formation. Indeed every single non-English speaking developed nation grew faster than the UK, or Germany, or France, or the EU as a whole since the EU's inception.
Why would you want to stick to the sclerotic failures of the past, rather than chart a bright future as a buccaneering free nation?
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.
The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
Half an hour later, Ed Chamberlin on ITV Racing was wearing a black tie. I suspect within that bland statement was a form of words known to the media which confirmed the prognosis was poor and death was imminent.
Many of the institutions in this country are seriously flawed or completely broken. We know this and can see it every day but we are not experts and so don't know exactly how or why this is the case or what can be done to fix it. Cyclefree, along with others, does great service on this site by explaining how and why these things are broken and suggesting ways in which they might be fixed, or at least improved.
It is telling that you attack her for being against the party you have political sympathies for when more often than not the issues are much older than one or two Governments and the solutions she suggests are not political but practical and structural.
This site, and most of its contributors, is far more even handed than you deserve.
So if I understand it correctly As Yorkshire got lot more money and members than minor county west, we will take your little Price baller off your hands 😈
That would require them to have one...
The issue is that they may not want to move to London, or Nottingham, or Manchester. In fact plenty of young cricketers have been heading the other way recently due to high house prices and family ties.
So if you denude large areas of the country of cricketing representation you may just lose them from the game to other jobs, with more security and flexibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs - demonstrates a single weapon (real and live) in an exercise back when they were *really* in fashion.
Lethal to a few hundred yards. FO those in the open. For those dug in, in trenches, a lot less. There's not much fallout.
Which is why the real battle plans consisted of hitting an enemy line with dozens at once.
If the defenders are annoying and dig in and spread themselves out, it is much harder to do more than make yourself spectacularly unpopular. This is a major reason why tactical nukes fell out of fashion - to make them useful, you end up with big nukes - 200Kt. And then you're into full on nuclear war....
I'm not sure more men in the meat grinder without any weapons, logistic or air superiority is going to prevent them from continuing to do it.
Omg it’s like magic. They just pop out: peeled!
I now positively look forward to peeling garlic
That is the single most useful thing I have ever learned on PB. Gratitude
https://twitter.com/doppelot/status/1573035003617083392
Their supply lines are utterly compromised by HIMARS. When you have lost the battle of maximum range, you have lost the Russian way to fight warfare.
Whether he understood that Germany remained the most serious threat is a different question. The evidence I have seen is that he didn't, but that's not conclusive as I haven't seen it all. I know more about his domestic than foreign policy.
Massive stroke?
Massive heart attack?
Or was it poison???
I wonder how many super yachts 32 years of air defence budget buys?
I have challenged him multiple times to write a thread header if he is unhappy with what he reads, but never
does. Just whines at those who do put the effort in.
Or perhaps more Miss Marple?
"Small hamlets in Germany are 2Kt apart"
When people think or act like your nukes can end the world, then its not worth fighting, but if nukes actually get used as a weapon of war and life goes on ... that's a curtain we'd rather not pull back but if it is pulled back, then the curtain can't go back up afterwards.
They've kept the lights on, but they do dim sum.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/august-landmesser-1936/
I always like this -
"Just pop over to the bunker and get me a nuclear bomb."
But I don't think that either approach, if implemented sensibly, uses so much water that it is problematic.
You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
I think we will never know, and it doesn't really matter, so fine to keep private.
But really think about the implications. As @williamglenn pointed out. The US could sink the Black Sea Fleet. They could conventionally bomb major cities. Every Russian citizen overseas could be detained. No one would do business. No allies of any kind. The Chinese could invade Siberia. Japanese too. Turkey? Eastern Europe? It would be a declaration of War on the entire world. No one would think any more they couldn't take them conventionally.
The magic spell has gone. The alternative from there would be nuclear conflagration.
I don't believe there aren't enough sensible folk in Russia to permit that.
The difference between the W54 and, say a 1Kt device would not be that great - try https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ to see what I mean....
50 ton yield - https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=0.05&lat=51.50853&lng=-0.12574&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=377&psi=20,5,1&zm=15
1Kt yield - https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=1&lat=51.50853&lng=-0.12574&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=1025&psi=20,5,1&zm=14
The bigger weapon is good for damaging cities over a wider area, but against troops in trenches, not so much.
No you wouldn't because you consider consequences. I know this because during Lockdown 1 you hunkered down in Penarth as you feared the consequences of remaining in the smoke with the great unwashed.
Putin might do it because he is a **** who doesn't care about consequences or collateral damage.
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
When you can get an accuracy of meters, accuracy is much more valuable than vast yields or huge numbers of weapons.
All that can save the lives of this 300K is the strong probability that Russian logistics will not be able to deliver them to the front line of anything useful before the war is over.
For those wanting a rather more technical explanation the following is a good read: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/explainer-russian-conscription-reserve-and-mobilization
Its not going to happen, but in the event it did the world would live on but Russia wouldn't.