Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.
ITV News says Chancellor looking to double the savings on DWP which could include:
- cutting housing benefit - raising state pension age to 67 & 68 sooner - removing triple-lock on state pension after next election - means-testing universal benefits
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
Russia's withdrawal to its February frontiers will mitigate that risk considerably.
It would have gained nothing whilst destroying most of its best weapons in the process. And added Finnish and Swedish borders to NATO. And eventually Ukraine into the EU and maybe NATO too.
With 60,000 dead, 100,000 injured and over a million of its brightest and best scarpered.
The only willy waving it could still do is its nukes. Those same nukes it couldn't actually use. Impotent.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
ITV News says Chancellor looking to double the savings on DWP which could include:
- cutting housing benefit - raising state pension age to 67 & 68 sooner - removing triple-lock on state pension after next election - means-testing universal benefits
Haha, yes, what a winning proposal - we'll keep it, until you vote for us.
Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.
A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.
If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
How much fucking Botox has Joe Biden had? I’m generally a low-key “fan” but he looks objectively awful, like some kind of elderly Max Headroom sent back in time from a dystopian 2080.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:
1) a negotiated peace 2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender 3) a nuclear exchange
Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:
1) a negotiated peace 2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender 3) a nuclear exchange
Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
Imagine if you were King and he told you he would nuke you if you didn't hand over Britain.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:
1) a negotiated peace 2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender 3) a nuclear exchange
Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
Imagine if you were King and he told you he would nuke you if you didn't hand over Britain.
In a "you have to unilaterally surrender to our genocidal regime or we'll nuke you" situation, you're fucked anyway so might as well fight back. But we're not in that situation, which is why I'm not proposing unilaterally surrendering or fighting to the death. I'm simply saying I think we should minimise the risk of a nuclear exchange which would kill billions.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:
1) a negotiated peace 2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender 3) a nuclear exchange
Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
Imagine if you were King and he told you he would nuke you if you didn't hand over Britain.
In a "you have to unilaterally surrender or we'll nuke you" situation, you're fucked anyway so might as well fight back. But we're not in that situation, which is why I'm not proposing unilaterally surrendering or fighting to the death. I'm simply saying I think we should minimise the risk of a nuclear exchange which would kill billions.
You minimise the risk of nuclear exchange by doing whatever the nuclear power wants.
Imagine if you were King and Pakistan demanded a 76% reparations tax on British incomes.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
It's amazing how many people on here want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Even the appearance of success for Putin will encourage future dictators to perform external aggression in future. Ukraine must be restored to its full territorial borders that it guaranteed in the 1990s.
Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.
A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.
If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
How much fucking Botox has Joe Biden had? I’m generally a low-key “fan” but he looks objectively awful, like some kind of elderly Max Headroom sent back in time from a dystopian 2080.
Luckily for the Dems his approval ratings aren’t as correlated with their chances . Something of a disconnect has occurred in this cycle helped by the GOP becoming even more toxic especially on the abortion issue .
Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.
A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.
If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?
The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.
Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners
Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.
A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.
If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?
The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.
Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners
The nuclear order would be the match that gets Putin removed. We already know he ordered a full mobilization and had to humiliatingly climb down while the state TV stations played the national Anthem. If he ordered nukes, the people that don't want their kids conscripted will also stop them getting vaporised.
Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.
A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.
If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?
The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.
Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners
Exactly, “it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat”. A humiliation for Russia with the added guarantee of vaporisation.
I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.
A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.
If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?
The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.
Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners
Exactly, “it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat”. A humiliation for Russia with the added guarantee of vaporisation.
I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
My experience of large bureacuracies is that when they run out of option 1, they try option 2. The scenario I outline above is a viable "option 2" scenario for Russia - a nuke on their own soil "as a test" would be a financial weapon as well as one of mass panic.
The point is that Russia is running out of option 1. Lots of people here seem to be assuming that if Ukraine retakes all its territory, retakes Crimea, etc, then Russia goes, yep, you won. Congrats. That seems unlikely to me to happen.
Nuclear weapons appear irrational from our perspective, but not irrational from the perspective of a nation that sees Ukraine (or parts of it) as Russian land. For example, imagine if bits of Cornwall were occupied by Putin. A significantly higher portion of UK citizens might agree with the use of nuclear weapons to drive the invaders out of Cornwall than, say, if the Russians were in Normandy. The problem we all have is that Russia has sold, and is in the process of selling, those bits of Ukraine as "bits of Cornwall" to its own citizenry. Therefore to us what looks irrational appears to be part of a rational defensive strategy to ordinary Russians.
Look at the rhetoric, look at the narrative. Putin's annexation of those territories (in the face of all the evidence, and military force to the contrary) tells you the narrative. Now, if we assume the majority of the Russian people see those territories as Russian, how do we think they will respond?
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:
1) a negotiated peace 2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender 3) a nuclear exchange
Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
Imagine if you were King and he told you he would nuke you if you didn't hand over Britain.
In a "you have to unilaterally surrender or we'll nuke you" situation, you're fucked anyway so might as well fight back. But we're not in that situation, which is why I'm not proposing unilaterally surrendering or fighting to the death. I'm simply saying I think we should minimise the risk of a nuclear exchange which would kill billions.
You minimise the risk of nuclear exchange by doing whatever the nuclear power wants.
Imagine if you were King and Pakistan demanded a 76% reparations tax on British incomes.
No, you minimise the risk of nuclear exchange by not seeking either *unconditional* (I fucked up earlier - the perils of typing on the Night Tube!) surrender, or a nuclear exchange.
The scenario you're proposing isn't what has happened in Ukraine (Russia hasn't issued a nuclear ultimatum to Ukraine, Ukraine isn't a nuclear power, Russia hasn't demanded an unconditional surrender afaik, etc). So it's not really relevant to what we're discussing. However, in a scenario where I was King, and we had more nukes than Pakistan, and greater delivery systems than Pakistan, and Pakistan decided to issue a nuclear ultimatum against a NATO country, I'd first try to seek a negotiated peace using my massive geopolitical and economic advantage, and secondly try to negotiate away Pakistan's ability to threaten to nuke people - which is exactly what I'm proposing we do with Russia!
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:
1) a negotiated peace 2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender 3) a nuclear exchange
Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
Imagine if you were King and he told you he would nuke you if you didn't hand over Britain.
In a "you have to unilaterally surrender or we'll nuke you" situation, you're fucked anyway so might as well fight back. But we're not in that situation, which is why I'm not proposing unilaterally surrendering or fighting to the death. I'm simply saying I think we should minimise the risk of a nuclear exchange which would kill billions.
You minimise the risk of nuclear exchange by doing whatever the nuclear power wants.
Imagine if you were King and Pakistan demanded a 76% reparations tax on British incomes.
No, you minimise the risk of nuclear exchange by not seeking either *unconditional* (I fucked up earlier - the perils of typing on the Night Tube!) surrender, or a nuclear exchange.
The scenario you're proposing isn't what has happened in Ukraine (Russia hasn't issued a nuclear ultimatum to Ukraine, Ukraine isn't a nuclear power, Russia hasn't demanded an unconditional surrender afaik, etc). So it's not really relevant to what we're discussing. However, in a scenario where I was King, and we had more nukes than Pakistan, and greater delivery systems than Pakistan, and Pakistan decided to issue a nuclear ultimatum against a NATO country, I'd first try to seek a negotiated peace using my massive geopolitical and economic advantage, and secondly try to negotiate away Pakistan's ability to threaten to nuke people - which is exactly what I'm proposing we do with Russia!
A person "thinks" that not seeking to defeat Russia by force of arms in order to return territory to Ukraine that the inhabitants of don't wish to be returned to Ukraine is tantamount to letting Pakistanis take lots of your money.
And you have replied to that person as if he is intellectually honest.
Pay close attention to what memes are gelling together here: barbarian Russia, a British war effort, foreigners taking what's yours, being so weakhearted as to submit to unreasonable demands made by Pakistanis...
Not pleasant, is it?
I reckon the person probably thinks the British king should keep hold of the stolen Koh-i-Noor diamond too, rather than handing it over to one of the countries that have a better claim to it, which include Pakistan.
* Ukrainian forces are using Starlink satellite internet terminals made by Elon Musk's company SpaceX, some donated by the company and others bought from it and then donated by the US government;
* the terminals have f*cked up a lot in recent weeks - in the Kharkov region, Zaporozhe, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.
A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.
If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?
The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.
Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners
Exactly, “it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat”. A humiliation for Russia with the added guarantee of vaporisation.
I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
My experience of large bureacuracies is that when they run out of option 1, they try option 2. The scenario I outline above is a viable "option 2" scenario for Russia - a nuke on their own soil "as a test" would be a financial weapon as well as one of mass panic.
The point is that Russia is running out of option 1. Lots of people here seem to be assuming that if Ukraine retakes all its territory, retakes Crimea, etc, then Russia goes, yep, you won. Congrats. That seems unlikely to me to happen.
Nuclear weapons appear irrational from our perspective, but not irrational from the perspective of a nation that sees Ukraine (or parts of it) as Russian land. For example, imagine if bits of Cornwall were occupied by Putin. A significantly higher portion of UK citizens might agree with the use of nuclear weapons to drive the invaders out of Cornwall than, say, if the Russians were in Normandy. The problem we all have is that Russia has sold, and is in the process of selling, those bits of Ukraine as "bits of Cornwall" to its own citizenry. Therefore to us what looks irrational appears to be part of a rational defensive strategy to ordinary Russians.
Look at the rhetoric, look at the narrative. Putin's annexation of those territories (in the face of all the evidence, and military force to the contrary) tells you the narrative. Now, if we assume the majority of the Russian people see those territories as Russian, how do we think they will respond?
Option 2 for the Russian state will be the blaming if Putin and his replacement as a fresh start. Because the Russian elite would prefer to go back to their old borders with a new leader than to risk their families dying. This is why they blocked full mobilization and this is why they would block nuclear war. And Putin is smart enough to know this, so while he might do a nuclear test or two, he won't launch a weapon abroad.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.
No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.
However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.
If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:
1) a negotiated peace 2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender 3) a nuclear exchange
Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
Imagine if you were King and he told you he would nuke you if you didn't hand over Britain.
In a "you have to unilaterally surrender or we'll nuke you" situation, you're fucked anyway so might as well fight back. But we're not in that situation, which is why I'm not proposing unilaterally surrendering or fighting to the death. I'm simply saying I think we should minimise the risk of a nuclear exchange which would kill billions.
You minimise the risk of nuclear exchange by doing whatever the nuclear power wants.
Imagine if you were King and Pakistan demanded a 76% reparations tax on British incomes.
No, you minimise the risk of nuclear exchange by not seeking either *unconditional* (I fucked up earlier - the perils of typing on the Night Tube!) surrender, or a nuclear exchange.
The scenario you're proposing isn't what has happened in Ukraine (Russia hasn't issued a nuclear ultimatum to Ukraine, Ukraine isn't a nuclear power, Russia hasn't demanded an unconditional surrender afaik, etc). So it's not really relevant to what we're discussing. However, in a scenario where I was King, and we had more nukes than Pakistan, and greater delivery systems than Pakistan, and Pakistan decided to issue a nuclear ultimatum against a NATO country, I'd first try to seek a negotiated peace using my massive geopolitical and economic advantage, and secondly try to negotiate away Pakistan's ability to threaten to nuke people - which is exactly what I'm proposing we do with Russia!
A person "thinks" that not seeking to defeat Russia by force of arms in order to return territory to Ukraine that the inhabitants of don't wish to be returned to Ukraine is tantamount to letting Pakistanis take lots of your money.
And you have replied to that person as if he is intellectually honest.
Pay close attention to what memes are gelling together here: barbarian Russia, a British war effort, foreigners taking what's yours, being so weakhearted as to submit to unreasonable demands made by Pakistanis...
Not pleasant, is it?
I reckon the person probably thinks the British king should keep hold of the stolen Koh-i-Noor diamond too, rather than handing it over to one of the countries that have a better claim to it, which include Pakistan.
Russia is barbarian. It is committing war crimes left, right and centre in Ukraine.
One thing that amuses me about Putin is his anti-western rhetoric. He tells his people how bad the western system is, how we are obsessed with things like gender, and that America is a Satan. The Russians are a better people, more moral, Godly.
And yet the 'terrible' west beat the USSR. Small Ukraine is beating Russia now; the west has not even taken part in any real fighting.
He is losing. Russia's weakness - a weakness at best unfixed under his leadership - is systematic.
Perhaps our system, with all its flaws, is better than his imperialist prison?
Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.
So sad, too bad. Only way back now, is through occupied Ukraine. Unless they like swimming!
That bridge is also the single busiest supply route for the enemy into Ukraine, so Crimea and the Ukranian South, is now just as cut off as Kherson. Starved out by Christmas?
So sad, too bad. Only way back now, is through occupied Ukraine. Unless they like swimming!
That bridge is also the single busiest supply route for the enemy into Ukraine, so Crimea and the Ukranian South, is now just as cut off as Kherson. Starved out by Christmas?
Certainly buggered Crimea as a holiday destination for Russians.
Especially when the airfields are next to get visited.
I think this attack is in direct response to Putin ordering all of the schoolchildren in Kherson to 'holiday' in Crimea. It is obvious that the children would then have been evacuated 'for their safety' across the Kerch Bridge.
Looking at how it's gone down and the lack of damage on the road surface, either a missile or mortar hit the road bridge pier at *exactly* the correct point, or it was a special forces hit. I'd go for the latter.
And whilst the road bridge is effed - so is the rail bridge. Even concrete bridges do not like hot fires for sustained periods.
Looking at how it's gone down and the lack of damage on the road surface, either a missile or mortar hit the road bridge pier at *exactly* the correct point, or it was a special forces hit. I'd go for the latter.
And whilst the road bridge is effed - so is the rail bridge. Even concrete bridges do not like hot fires for sustained periods.
Agreed, likely taken out from below by SF, rather than hit from above. It’s a sturdy structure, would have needed one hell of a bang just in the right place to pull it down.
Looking at how it's gone down and the lack of damage on the road surface, either a missile or mortar hit the road bridge pier at *exactly* the correct point, or it was a special forces hit. I'd go for the latter.
And whilst the road bridge is effed - so is the rail bridge. Even concrete bridges do not like hot fires for sustained periods.
The timing with a fuel train passing looks to have been very deliberate.
Doesn't look like HIMARS this time. Possibly charges laid by frogmen, but would still need a significant amount of C5. There was recently an image of a "stealth" boat washed up in Crimea. Possible way in for SF?
Agree - that is not a missile explosion - that is a very large demolition charge - probably placed at the road bridge bearings (top of pier - under bridge deck). And perfectly timed to coincide with passing fuel train. The road bridge is completely out of action (indefinitely) but the rail bridge might survive - all depends on intensity and duration of fire....but certainly out of action in the short term (2 weeks) as infrastructure will be badly damaged
Congratulations to whichever team did that, awesome job! 🇺🇦 👍
Parts of the bridge have made a tactical retreat and are regrouping under the sea. I’m sure it’s all part of Putin’s master-strategy.
Assuming it’s not another fake video. The still with the piece of road bridge missing looks unreal, and it isn’t clear what the link is between the fire on the upper bridge and the very neat piece of roadway that has become detached but otherwise intact below?
Congratulations to whichever team did that, awesome job! 🇺🇦 👍
One thing to note on that video: a small boat is moored by the road bridge, just beyond the failed span. I wonder if that is how the SF got in, or if it is normally there?
As I said the other day, actually dropping a span of a well-made bridge is quite hard - look at how many times the Ukrainians hit the large bridge in Kherson without it dropping, and the mess the attempts made. You need to put the explosives in exactly the right places - but if you can do that, you do not need that much explosive. The problem is getting it to the correct place.
(Looking at these pictures and video, I really cannot see how a missile or artillery did this. Might be wrong, though.)
Congratulations to whichever team did that, awesome job! 🇺🇦 👍
That was something special. There had been talk earlier that the Russians were relaxed, thinking it was too sturdy to demolish short of a big boat underneath packed with explosives, which they could monitor and prevent.
Ooops. Hadn't reckoned on some expertise out of Hereford....
Congratulations to whichever team did that, awesome job! 🇺🇦 👍
Parts of the bridge have made a tactical retreat and are regrouping under the sea. I’m sure it’s all part of Putin’s master-strategy.
Assuming it’s not another fake video. The still with the piece of road bridge missing looks unreal, and it isn’t clear what the link is between the fire on the upper bridge and the very neat piece of roadway that has become detached but otherwise intact below?
Agree - that is not a missile explosion - that is a very large demolition charge - probably placed at the road bridge bearings (top of pier - under bridge deck). And perfectly timed to coincide with passing fuel train. The road bridge is completely out of action (indefinitely) but the rail bridge might survive - all depends on intensity and duration of fire....but certainly out of action in the short term (2 weeks) as infrastructure will be badly damaged
My *guess* would be the fuel train is incidental. Either the charges went off at the 'right' time and debris hit the train, or the SF team saw the train and fired into it as a target of opportunity.
I disagree the road bridge is fully out of action indefinitely; they can put temporary spans across the fallen section (as long as they are at a stable repose). We saw the Ukrainians do this earlier in the war with some bridge taken out by Russia. But it'd be hard to build it strong enough to take very heavy weights.
I'd actually be more concerned about the rail bridge: reinforced concrete does not like heat for sustained periods. And if it is post-tensioned, they're really in trouble.
Hmmm. One of the piccies of the still-standing (though sagging) section of road bridge shows the damage was in the middle of a span between piers. That makes it less likely to be SF. Also, it appears to have been damaged on a couple of spans.
I'm veering back towards missile or boat, rather than SF demo.
Congratulations to whichever team did that, awesome job! 🇺🇦 👍
Parts of the bridge have made a tactical retreat and are regrouping under the sea. I’m sure it’s all part of Putin’s master-strategy.
Assuming it’s not another fake video. The still with the piece of road bridge missing looks unreal, and it isn’t clear what the link is between the fire on the upper bridge and the very neat piece of roadway that has become detached but otherwise intact below?
Safe to say it is not fake. Too many images from far and wide.
Although it is odd that here are no officials taking stock/keeping back people relaying images of the damage to Kyiv. And no attempt at firefighting.
Congratulations to whichever team did that, awesome job! 🇺🇦 👍
Parts of the bridge have made a tactical retreat and are regrouping under the sea. I’m sure it’s all part of Putin’s master-strategy.
Assuming it’s not another fake video. The still with the piece of road bridge missing looks unreal, and it isn’t clear what the link is between the fire on the upper bridge and the very neat piece of roadway that has become detached but otherwise intact below?
Safe to say it is not fake. Too many images from far and wide.
Although it is odd that here are no officials taking stock/keeping back people relaying images of the damage to Kyiv. And no attempt at firefighting.
Where do you fight fire from? Adjacent road doesnt exist....rail is probably unstable - would need a ship based firefighting system...would take a few hours to get from nearest port.
1) The Kerch Bridge is not just a piece on infrastructure: it was a symbol. Its construction was made to confirm Crimea as part of Russia, not Ukraine, by giving Russia a land connection. It was an important project for Putin. Its destruction will resonate in the same way the sinking of the Moskva did.
2) *If* the bridge is repaired, at least partially, Russia will divert a heck of a load of resources to protect it. At a time when they are short of resources.
3) The obvious one: forces in Crimea now have a very long land route, or have to go via vulnerable ferries. Logistics have just got *much* worse for Russia - and it was not as if they were brilliant at logistics to begin with.
I did warn you all about Binance and crypto in general.
Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, may have lost half a billion dollars after a hack of its network.
The company temporarily suspended transactions and the transfer of funds after detecting an exploit between two blockchains, a method of digital theft that has been used recently in at least one other major hack.
I'd guess the bridge incident is planned to make Putin look weak. The Russian people see the mobilisation isn't going well and there is bad news from the front. It is a crushing psychological blow.
Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.
Indeed. Despite a good argument pain is linked somewhat to the international situation, the daily ineptitude of this governments coordination and communication, and it’s naive budget in particular, has now invited blame onto themselves, at least at this stage of proceedings.
Truss may ask King to approve delay of Johnson peerages
Boris Johnson has nominated up to eight Conservative MPs for peerages in his resignation honours list, prompting frantic efforts by Liz Truss to avoid a series of damaging by-election defeats.
The former prime minister is understood to have rewarded key loyalists in Westminster with seats in the House of Lords in one of his final acts in No 10.
The move could trigger a row with the Lords authorities because Truss has asked the nominees to defer their appointments until after the next election. Constitutional experts said such a move would be unprecedented and risked dragging the King into politics because he would have to approve the arrangement.
The list is understood to include the former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries and former Cabinet Office minister Nigel Adams, both Johnson loyalists.
Sources said there were more serving MPs on the list, with as many as eight names believed to have gone to the House of Lords Appointments Commission for approval
It’s not clear to me she has a working majority. Surely she realises this?
OTOH, she kindof had to do this to draw a line under Pinchergate, so I’m not surprised.
You’re right though, it’s not particularly fair on Mr Burns. I dislike this whole allegation = destroyed career thing that’s happened in recent years.
But that’s British politics in 2022.
It's employment, not criminal, law that is the standard. All that is needed is for it to likely be true on the balance of probabilities. And she can give him his job back if she's wrong. And a huge contrast to how her predecessor dealt with things.
Truss may ask King to approve delay of Johnson peerages
Boris Johnson has nominated up to eight Conservative MPs for peerages in his resignation honours list, prompting frantic efforts by Liz Truss to avoid a series of damaging by-election defeats.
The former prime minister is understood to have rewarded key loyalists in Westminster with seats in the House of Lords in one of his final acts in No 10.
The move could trigger a row with the Lords authorities because Truss has asked the nominees to defer their appointments until after the next election. Constitutional experts said such a move would be unprecedented and risked dragging the King into politics because he would have to approve the arrangement.
The list is understood to include the former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries and former Cabinet Office minister Nigel Adams, both Johnson loyalists.
Sources said there were more serving MPs on the list, with as many as eight names believed to have gone to the House of Lords Appointments Commission for approval
Reports in Russia are saying the bridge was blown up by a truck bomb.
Treat with caution of course but that does seem possible, if they had an explosive that would send most of the force downwards, and an operative willing to run a suicide mission.
In that case (a) they picked the spot very cleverly as it destroys the road bridge without blocking the shipping lanes (although I bet Putin would blow the high arches to do that if he has to quit Mariupol and Crimea) (b) the fuel train was probably a useful bonus, but USF may have known it was coming and timed their operation accordingly.
Reports in Russia are saying the bridge was blown up by a truck bomb.
Treat with caution of course but that does seem possible, if they had an explosive that would send most of the force downwards, and an operative willing to run a suicide mission.
In that case (a) they picked the spot very cleverly as it destroys the road bridge without blocking the shipping lanes (although I bet Putin would blow the high arches to do that if he has to quit Mariupol and Crimea) (b) the fuel train was probably a useful bonus, but USF may have known it was coming and timed their operation accordingly.
Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.
Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.
Even I think this is unfair. But the government only have themselves to blame for the fact the public are blaming them. They have reached the stage where the voters won't give them a fair hearing about anything. There is no way back from this. Labour majority is underpriced.
Reports in Russia are saying the bridge was blown up by a truck bomb.
Treat with caution of course but that does seem possible, if they had an explosive that would send most of the force downwards, and an operative willing to run a suicide mission.
In that case (a) they picked the spot very cleverly as it destroys the road bridge without blocking the shipping lanes (although I bet Putin would blow the high arches to do that if he has to quit Mariupol and Crimea) (b) the fuel train was probably a useful bonus, but USF may have known it was coming and timed their operation accordingly.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
She’s not changing the legislation for anyone else - effectively the crown just can get certain exemptions. It’s a bit like the Treasury not paying interest to the Bank of England
Your example would be more accurate if it were "Ms Truss makes it unnecessary to have to pay interest on her mortage to the BoE". This is the sovereign interfering in matters affecting her *private* property. Not on.
The Crown has the specific right to do this. If you don’t like it change the constitution.
I don’t see why a TV series should get so much power personally…
Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.
Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.
Even I think this is unfair. But the government only have themselves to blame for the fact the public are blaming them. They have reached the stage where the voters won't give them a fair hearing about anything. There is no way back from this. Labour majority is underpriced.
It was unfair to blame labour in 2008, but it still happened. This is unfair now, still gonna happen…
Reports in Russia are saying the bridge was blown up by a truck bomb.
Treat with caution of course but that does seem possible, if they had an explosive that would send most of the force downwards, and an operative willing to run a suicide mission.
In that case (a) they picked the spot very cleverly as it destroys the road bridge without blocking the shipping lanes (although I bet Putin would blow the high arches to do that if he has to quit Mariupol and Crimea) (b) the fuel train was probably a useful bonus, but USF may have known it was coming and timed their operation accordingly.
Reports in Russia are saying the bridge was blown up by a truck bomb.
Treat with caution of course but that does seem possible, if they had an explosive that would send most of the force downwards, and an operative willing to run a suicide mission.
In that case (a) they picked the spot very cleverly as it destroys the road bridge without blocking the shipping lanes (although I bet Putin would blow the high arches to do that if he has to quit Mariupol and Crimea) (b) the fuel train was probably a useful bonus, but USF may have known it was coming and timed their operation accordingly.
Explosion from under the bridge. But if that’s their CCTV, how come they didn’t spot where the explosion came from?
Presumably the 'truck bomb' is because the truck was passing at the time and the fuel tank caught fire.
It looks as though that's what set the train off.
If so, presumably that was a lucky fluke (or unlucky for those on the bridge at the time).
A brilliant military operation. If the Russian security was that lax on something they must surely have known was a key target, no wonder they're imploding.
Edit - judging by the footage still being published they haven't even sealed the bridge off yet. What a bunch of muppets.
Reports in Russia are saying the bridge was blown up by a truck bomb.
Treat with caution of course but that does seem possible, if they had an explosive that would send most of the force downwards, and an operative willing to run a suicide mission.
In that case (a) they picked the spot very cleverly as it destroys the road bridge without blocking the shipping lanes (although I bet Putin would blow the high arches to do that if he has to quit Mariupol and Crimea) (b) the fuel train was probably a useful bonus, but USF may have known it was coming and timed their operation accordingly.
Explosion from under the bridge. But if that’s their CCTV, how come they didn’t spot where the explosion came from?
Presumably the 'truck bomb' is because the truck was passing at the time and the fuel tank caught fire.
It looks as though that's what set the train off.
If so, presumably that was a lucky fluke (or unlucky for those on the bridge at the time).
A brilliant military operation. If the Russian security was that lax on something they must surely have known was a key target, no wonder they're imploding.
Edit - judging by the footage still being published they haven't even sealed the bridge off yet. What a bunch of muppets.
Everything Russia says is a lie, so ignore the exploding truck. Presumably the driver was smoking.
And not a fluke - timed to coincide with the fuel train. I bet they run to a timetable, and even if not you can see it coming q ling way off.
Reports in Russia are saying the bridge was blown up by a truck bomb.
Treat with caution of course but that does seem possible, if they had an explosive that would send most of the force downwards, and an operative willing to run a suicide mission.
In that case (a) they picked the spot very cleverly as it destroys the road bridge without blocking the shipping lanes (although I bet Putin would blow the high arches to do that if he has to quit Mariupol and Crimea) (b) the fuel train was probably a useful bonus, but USF may have known it was coming and timed their operation accordingly.
Might even be three. There are two on one carriageway but is that a third spot some way ahead on the other carriageway as well?
That railway bridge doesn't look too good. I suspect it has suffered the fate of the original Britannia Bridge - still standing but fundamentally weakened.
Doubt if it's done that pillar any favours either.
Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.
Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.
Even I think this is unfair. But the government only have themselves to blame for the fact the public are blaming them. They have reached the stage where the voters won't give them a fair hearing about anything. There is no way back from this. Labour majority is underpriced.
It was unfair to blame labour in 2008, but it still happened. This is unfair now, still gonna happen…
Yes that is a very good analogy. Of course while 2008 damaged Labour hugely Brown was still able to deny Cameron a majority. I don't think Truss will be able to do that though, because I think the Tories get punished by the voters more for perceived economic ineptitude - like after Black Wednesday. Voters don't always like the Tories but vote for them because of their perceived strengths on the economy. Once they lose that they've got nothing.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
What’s you answer ? Exactly how do you ‘de-escalate’ by giving in to Putin ? How does that work, practically ?
You talk as though it’s a simple process, but such an endeavour (aside from being morally contemptible), would be fraught with as many, if not more uncertainties than continuing to support the victim.
And it would be far from guaranteed to prevent nuclear confrontation. There’s a strong case that it would make it more likely. As cogently argued here. https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1578543016079687680 If you want nuclear war, give in to nuclear blackmail. If you don’t, then don’t. If you are thinking about nuclear war, this might help
Reports in Russia are saying the bridge was blown up by a truck bomb.
Treat with caution of course but that does seem possible, if they had an explosive that would send most of the force downwards, and an operative willing to run a suicide mission.
In that case (a) they picked the spot very cleverly as it destroys the road bridge without blocking the shipping lanes (although I bet Putin would blow the high arches to do that if he has to quit Mariupol and Crimea) (b) the fuel train was probably a useful bonus, but USF may have known it was coming and timed their operation accordingly.
Explosion from under the bridge. But if that’s their CCTV, how come they didn’t spot where the explosion came from?
Presumably the 'truck bomb' is because the truck was passing at the time and the fuel tank caught fire.
It looks as though that's what set the train off.
If so, presumably that was a lucky fluke (or unlucky for those on the bridge at the time).
A brilliant military operation. If the Russian security was that lax on something they must surely have known was a key target, no wonder they're imploding.
Edit - judging by the footage still being published they haven't even sealed the bridge off yet. What a bunch of muppets.
Everything Russia says is a lie, so ignore the exploding truck. Presumably the driver was smoking.
And not a fluke - timed to coincide with the fuel train. I bet they run to a timetable, and even if not you can see it coming q ling way off.
Existential threat to the state of Russia?
How does Putin respond to this? Bare minimum will be a couple of Ukr schools/hospitals blow to bits I guess.
I se @HYUFD has still not grasped that his bizarre fantasies of treasonous huge hot water pipelines all over Scotland are just fantasy.
Reality is -
- general law to ensure that hot water has the other way-rights as other public services such as electricity, as and when and where needed - Her Maj fiddled the law to give her *priovate properties* in Scotland exemption -this is dreadful in itself, because it explodes the fantasy of a constitutional figurehead monarchy - it is also an awful example to set in a developing energy crisis -contrary to HYUFD's fantasy, the SNP government (as it was then) followed the then rules set up by the Labour-LD coalition back in the 1990s - the SG followed this in the teeth of a media offensive and court cases - it was HYUFD's chums the right-wing monarchists and unionists known as the SLDs who attacked the SG and the RF over this system - which they set up in the first place at Holyrood
Reports in Russia are saying the bridge was blown up by a truck bomb.
Treat with caution of course but that does seem possible, if they had an explosive that would send most of the force downwards, and an operative willing to run a suicide mission.
In that case (a) they picked the spot very cleverly as it destroys the road bridge without blocking the shipping lanes (although I bet Putin would blow the high arches to do that if he has to quit Mariupol and Crimea) (b) the fuel train was probably a useful bonus, but USF may have known it was coming and timed their operation accordingly.
Explosion from under the bridge. But if that’s their CCTV, how come they didn’t spot where the explosion came from?
Presumably the 'truck bomb' is because the truck was passing at the time and the fuel tank caught fire.
It looks as though that's what set the train off.
If so, presumably that was a lucky fluke (or unlucky for those on the bridge at the time).
A brilliant military operation. If the Russian security was that lax on something they must surely have known was a key target, no wonder they're imploding.
Edit - judging by the footage still being published they haven't even sealed the bridge off yet. What a bunch of muppets.
Everything Russia says is a lie, so ignore the exploding truck. Presumably the driver was smoking.
And not a fluke - timed to coincide with the fuel train. I bet they run to a timetable, and even if not you can see it coming q ling way off.
Existential threat to the state of Russia?
How does Putin respond to this? Bare minimum will be a couple of Ukr schools/hospitals blow to bits I guess.
For starters, I rather fear he will put some Ukrainian children kidnapped from Kherson and possibly further afield on each ship that sails too and from Crimea. And will make sure the Ukrainians know it.
Might even be three. There are two on one carriageway but is that a third spot some way ahead on the other carriageway as well?
That railway bridge doesn't look too good. I suspect it has suffered the fate of the original Britannia Bridge - still standing but fundamentally weakened.
Doubt if it's done that pillar any favours either.
Difficult to see the extent of damage on the inner road carriageway, seen at 0:22. If the guy filming has come out of that red vehicle, maybe suggests it is passable and the damage is primarily debris, but I'm not at all sure?
Might even be three. There are two on one carriageway but is that a third spot some way ahead on the other carriageway as well?
That railway bridge doesn't look too good. I suspect it has suffered the fate of the original Britannia Bridge - still standing but fundamentally weakened.
Doubt if it's done that pillar any favours either.
Difficult to see the extent of damage on the inner road carriageway, seen at 0:22. If the guy filming has come out of that red vehicle, maybe suggests it is passable and the damage is primarily debris, but I'm not at all sure?
I looks like it might be walkable. Certainly wouldn’t want to be driving a lorry or a tank over it though!
Might even be three. There are two on one carriageway but is that a third spot some way ahead on the other carriageway as well?
That railway bridge doesn't look too good. I suspect it has suffered the fate of the original Britannia Bridge - still standing but fundamentally weakened.
Doubt if it's done that pillar any favours either.
Difficult to see the extent of damage on the inner road carriageway, seen at 0:22. If the guy filming has come out of that red vehicle, maybe suggests it is passable and the damage is primarily debris, but I'm not at all sure?
One carriageway is gone, the other looks intact. They will need to inspect it, but unless it is really bad, Russia will almost certainly need to keep it open, if only to avoid giving Ukraine a massive win.
Suspect the rail bridge is going to be out of commission for quite a while. But again, they will probably take the risk of laying new track and seeing if it will take the weight....
Might even be three. There are two on one carriageway but is that a third spot some way ahead on the other carriageway as well?
That railway bridge doesn't look too good. I suspect it has suffered the fate of the original Britannia Bridge - still standing but fundamentally weakened.
Doubt if it's done that pillar any favours either.
Difficult to see the extent of damage on the inner road carriageway, seen at 0:22. If the guy filming has come out of that red vehicle, maybe suggests it is passable and the damage is primarily debris, but I'm not at all sure?
Comments
A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.
ITV News says Chancellor looking to double the savings on DWP which could include:
- cutting housing benefit
- raising state pension age to 67 & 68 sooner
- removing triple-lock on state pension after next election
- means-testing universal benefits
Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.
Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
With 60,000 dead, 100,000 injured and over a million of its brightest and best scarpered.
The only willy waving it could still do is its nukes. Those same nukes it couldn't actually use. Impotent.
I’m generally a low-key “fan” but he looks objectively awful, like some kind of elderly Max Headroom sent back in time from a dystopian 2080.
https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1578520547645759490?s=46&t=Z7HR-yZPd1YfqbUT7aUxdA
1) a negotiated peace
2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender
3) a nuclear exchange
Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
Imagine if you were King and Pakistan demanded a 76% reparations tax on British incomes.
The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.
Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners
I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
The point is that Russia is running out of option 1. Lots of people here seem to be assuming that if Ukraine retakes all its territory, retakes Crimea, etc, then Russia goes, yep, you won. Congrats. That seems unlikely to me to happen.
Nuclear weapons appear irrational from our perspective, but not irrational from the perspective of a nation that sees Ukraine (or parts of it) as Russian land. For example, imagine if bits of Cornwall were occupied by Putin. A significantly higher portion of UK citizens might agree with the use of nuclear weapons to drive the invaders out of Cornwall than, say, if the Russians were in Normandy. The problem we all have is that Russia has sold, and is in the process of selling, those bits of Ukraine as "bits of Cornwall" to its own citizenry. Therefore to us what looks irrational appears to be part of a rational defensive strategy to ordinary Russians.
Look at the rhetoric, look at the narrative. Putin's annexation of those territories (in the face of all the evidence, and military force to the contrary) tells you the narrative. Now, if we assume the majority of the Russian people see those territories as Russian, how do we think they will respond?
The scenario you're proposing isn't what has happened in Ukraine (Russia hasn't issued a nuclear ultimatum to Ukraine, Ukraine isn't a nuclear power, Russia hasn't demanded an unconditional surrender afaik, etc). So it's not really relevant to what we're discussing. However, in a scenario where I was King, and we had more nukes than Pakistan, and greater delivery systems than Pakistan, and Pakistan decided to issue a nuclear ultimatum against a NATO country, I'd first try to seek a negotiated peace using my massive geopolitical and economic advantage, and secondly try to negotiate away Pakistan's ability to threaten to nuke people - which is exactly what I'm proposing we do with Russia!
And you have replied to that person as if he is intellectually honest.
Pay close attention to what memes are gelling together here: barbarian Russia, a British war effort, foreigners taking what's yours, being so weakhearted as to submit to unreasonable demands made by Pakistanis...
Not pleasant, is it?
I reckon the person probably thinks the British king should keep hold of the stolen Koh-i-Noor diamond too, rather than handing it over to one of the countries that have a better claim to it, which include Pakistan.
* Ukrainian forces are using Starlink satellite internet terminals made by Elon Musk's company SpaceX, some donated by the company and others bought from it and then donated by the US government;
* the terminals have f*cked up a lot in recent weeks - in the Kharkov region, Zaporozhe, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
There may well be more to come in this story.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1578594740743720961
Belated birthday cake for Putin. Blow those candles out, Vlad.....
Looks like they properly got the bridge too, suggestions that the road section has collapsed and the rail section contains a train on fire.
Happy birthday Putin!
And yet the 'terrible' west beat the USSR. Small Ukraine is beating Russia now; the west has not even taken part in any real fighting.
He is losing. Russia's weakness - a weakness at best unfixed under his leadership - is systematic.
Perhaps our system, with all its flaws, is better than his imperialist prison?
https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/8-october-footage-suggests-parts-of-road-part-of-crimea-bridge
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-blame-ministers-mortgages-ml79vzcff
No escape route back to Mother Russia.
That bridge is also the single busiest supply route for the enemy into Ukraine, so Crimea and the Ukranian South, is now just as cut off as Kherson. Starved out by Christmas?
https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/8-october-road-part-of-crimean-bridge-has-collapsed-
Especially when the airfields are next to get visited.
Clear message - Dont f@ck with children.
And whilst the road bridge is effed - so is the rail bridge. Even concrete bridges do not like hot fires for sustained periods.
Doesn't look like HIMARS this time. Possibly charges laid by frogmen, but would still need a significant amount of C5. There was recently an image of a "stealth" boat washed up in Crimea. Possible way in for SF?
https://eurasiantimes.com/russia-blows-up-an-invading-drone-boat-that-dodged-patrols/
Do you think he'll mind?
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1578605334062473216
Congratulations to whichever team did that, awesome job! 🇺🇦 👍
Assuming it’s not another fake video. The still with the piece of road bridge missing looks unreal, and it isn’t clear what the link is between the fire on the upper bridge and the very neat piece of roadway that has become detached but otherwise intact below?
As I said the other day, actually dropping a span of a well-made bridge is quite hard - look at how many times the Ukrainians hit the large bridge in Kherson without it dropping, and the mess the attempts made. You need to put the explosives in exactly the right places - but if you can do that, you do not need that much explosive. The problem is getting it to the correct place.
(Looking at these pictures and video, I really cannot see how a missile or artillery did this. Might be wrong, though.)
Ooops. Hadn't reckoned on some expertise out of Hereford....
I disagree the road bridge is fully out of action indefinitely; they can put temporary spans across the fallen section (as long as they are at a stable repose). We saw the Ukrainians do this earlier in the war with some bridge taken out by Russia. But it'd be hard to build it strong enough to take very heavy weights.
I'd actually be more concerned about the rail bridge: reinforced concrete does not like heat for sustained periods. And if it is post-tensioned, they're really in trouble.
I'm veering back towards missile or boat, rather than SF demo.
Another image - must have been taken out in at least two places.
Cockleshell Heroes Redux?
Although it is odd that here are no officials taking stock/keeping back people relaying images of the damage to Kyiv. And no attempt at firefighting.
I’m surprised it took Ukr so long to attack the bridge.
However, this does escalate things somewhat.
I think, right now, this is probably more dangerous than at the height of the Cuban missile crisis.
Scary.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
1) The Kerch Bridge is not just a piece on infrastructure: it was a symbol. Its construction was made to confirm Crimea as part of Russia, not Ukraine, by giving Russia a land connection. It was an important project for Putin. Its destruction will resonate in the same way the sinking of the Moskva did.
2) *If* the bridge is repaired, at least partially, Russia will divert a heck of a load of resources to protect it. At a time when they are short of resources.
3) The obvious one: forces in Crimea now have a very long land route, or have to go via vulnerable ferries. Logistics have just got *much* worse for Russia - and it was not as if they were brilliant at logistics to begin with.
I'm not sure he'll be able to cope with this bridge news.
https://news.sky.com/story/trade-minister-conor-burns-sacked-from-govt-after-complaint-of-serious-misconduct-12714659
Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, may have lost half a billion dollars after a hack of its network.
The company temporarily suspended transactions and the transfer of funds after detecting an exploit between two blockchains, a method of digital theft that has been used recently in at least one other major hack.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/07/binance-crypto-hack-suspended-operations
OTOH, she kindof had to do this to draw a line under Pinchergate, so I’m not surprised.
You’re right though, it’s not particularly fair on Mr Burns. I dislike this whole allegation = destroyed career thing that’s happened in recent years.
But that’s British politics in 2022.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1578614272263094272?t=WEj9IljOdkJPQZmB2Q3mgA&s=19
I’m sceptical.
Boris Johnson has nominated up to eight Conservative MPs for peerages in his resignation honours list, prompting frantic efforts by Liz Truss to avoid a series of damaging by-election defeats.
The former prime minister is understood to have rewarded key loyalists in Westminster with seats in the House of Lords in one of his final acts in No 10.
The move could trigger a row with the Lords authorities because Truss has asked the nominees to defer their appointments until after the next election. Constitutional experts said such a move would be unprecedented and risked dragging the King into politics because he would have to approve the arrangement.
The list is understood to include the former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries and former Cabinet Office minister Nigel Adams, both Johnson loyalists.
Sources said there were more serving MPs on the list, with as many as eight names believed to have gone to the House of Lords Appointments Commission for approval
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/truss-may-ask-king-to-approve-delay-of-johnson-peerages-m6gsxxbvl
And the road bridge just fell into the sea on its own?
A GE now could be Agent Truss's coup de grace...
Treat with caution of course but that does seem possible, if they had an explosive that would send most of the force downwards, and an operative willing to run a suicide mission.
In that case (a) they picked the spot very cleverly as it destroys the road bridge without blocking the shipping lanes (although I bet Putin would blow the high arches to do that if he has to quit Mariupol and Crimea) (b) the fuel train was probably a useful bonus, but USF may have known it was coming and timed their operation accordingly.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1578633576253657089?t=i96_S3vXI801Md9paF0EUA&s=19
https://twitter.com/realita83/status/1578637560708222976?t=xUu_2ywQ3SyWTiPfKuHmZA&s=19
It looks as though that's what set the train off.
If so, presumably that was a lucky fluke (or unlucky for those on the bridge at the time).
A brilliant military operation. If the Russian security was that lax on something they must surely have known was a key target, no wonder they're imploding.
Edit - judging by the footage still being published they haven't even sealed the bridge off yet. What a bunch of muppets.
And not a fluke - timed to coincide with the fuel train. I bet they run to a timetable, and even if not you can see it coming q ling way off.
Train fire has burnt out. Rail bridge looks fooked to my untrained eye.
https://twitter.com/z_swiata/status/1578639857005383680
That railway bridge doesn't look too good. I suspect it has suffered the fate of the original Britannia Bridge - still standing but fundamentally weakened.
Doubt if it's done that pillar any favours either.
Exactly how do you ‘de-escalate’ by giving in to Putin ? How does that work, practically ?
You talk as though it’s a simple process, but such an endeavour (aside from being morally contemptible), would be fraught with as many, if not more uncertainties than continuing to support the victim.
And it would be far from guaranteed to prevent nuclear confrontation. There’s a strong case that it would make it more likely. As cogently argued here.
https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1578543016079687680
If you want nuclear war, give in to nuclear blackmail. If you don’t, then don’t. If you are thinking about nuclear war, this might help
Mr. Sandpit, think Verstappen will get a penalty for the Norris incident?
How does Putin respond to this? Bare minimum will be a couple of Ukr schools/hospitals blow to bits I guess.
Reality is -
- general law to ensure that hot water has the other way-rights as other public services such as electricity, as and when and where needed
- Her Maj fiddled the law to give her *priovate properties* in Scotland exemption
-this is dreadful in itself, because it explodes the fantasy of a constitutional figurehead monarchy
- it is also an awful example to set in a developing energy crisis
-contrary to HYUFD's fantasy, the SNP government (as it was then) followed the then rules set up by the Labour-LD coalition back in the 1990s
- the SG followed this in the teeth of a media offensive and court cases
- it was HYUFD's chums the right-wing monarchists and unionists known as the SLDs who attacked the SG and the RF over this system - which they set up in the first place at Holyrood
Suspect the rail bridge is going to be out of commission for quite a while. But again, they will probably take the risk of laying new track and seeing if it will take the weight....
https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1578605748942053376
The inner carriage has been severed without being destroyed.
So just dump a bit of gravel to make a ramp and I'm sure it will be fine.