It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
There is some debate about whether he 'gave' Starlink to Ukraine; or at least, how much the US government paid for him to give Starlink to Ukraine.
The facts on that seem to be the US government paid for some terminals, others were donated and the service provided by Starlink for free - ground stations to connect Ukraine, actual subscriptions, and hardening the system against Russian attacks.
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
It's amazing how the free market works: if there is tremendous demand for lithium and nickel, people will find ways of producing it.
The market is subordinate to the laws of physics.
There is plenty of lithium and nickel in the world.
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
Their hybrid technology is getting better, we hired a Yaris hybrid in Scotland and it did over 70 mpg even on highway driving. Toyota have probably calculated that there is going to be an enormous market for that particularly in the parts of the world where the infrastructure for EV's doesn't exist.
A friend got a Jaguar EV at work and it was an absolute disaster. It couldn't manage a 140 mile drive without running out of battery. Not fit for purpose. Toyota have probably decided that they shouldn't rush EV's to the market without mastering the technology.
Even my Corsa-e manages better range than that (200 miles ish). Charging not really been an issue
Interestingly at the end of this clip, Putin is told that Russian citizens helped in the operation to blow up the Kerch bridge. He could be laying the ground for more internal repression.
@maxseddon Putin makes his first comments about the explosion on the bridge to Crimea. He says it's a "terrorist attack aimed at destroying critical Russian civilian infrastructure" and blames "Ukrainian secret services" for it.
From what I have seen and on the information we know so far it looks like it could have been a suicide truck bomb driven by a Russian national. In any case, a spectacular sabotage.
The BBC got an expert to look at the footage - who stated that the explosion doesn’t seem to come from the truck or look like any of the truck bombings he had seen.
In regards to Sturgeon's mild statement of her opinion on the Conservative party: is the UK political media alright in the head? Do they need help? Are the conscious of what they are doing?
Sturgeon made a mistake - she didn't need to be hostile. A bit of condescension or even pity would have been more apposite.
We can all nod in sorrow at the plight of the Conservative Party and be sympathetic at its impending shellacking (copyright @TSE) at the next election....
In private and internally we can of course all be laughing and getting in the popcorn.
The SNP have got wall to wall coverage on how much they hate the Tories.
Know how many Tory votes they need? Zero. Know how many Labour votes they need? As many as they can get.
This is the least mistakey thing in the history of non mistakes ever.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit.
It really is though.
Any argument that Brexit played no part in our diminished status is as convincing as Truss and Kwasi claiming the Special Fiscal Operation didn't crash the markets
In regards to Sturgeon's mild statement of her opinion on the Conservative party: is the UK political media alright in the head? Do they need help? Are the conscious of what they are doing?
Sturgeon made a mistake - she didn't need to be hostile. A bit of condescension or even pity would have been more apposite.
We can all nod in sorrow at the plight of the Conservative Party and be sympathetic at its impending shellacking (copyright @TSE) at the next election....
In private and internally we can of course all be laughing and getting in the popcorn.
The SNP have got wall to wall coverage on how much they hate the Tories.
Know how many Tory votes they need? Zero. Know how many Labour votes they need? As many as they can get.
This is the least mistakey thing in the history of non mistakes ever.
I don't see it as particularly a big deal, especially given the equivalent hostility the Tories (and Labour) show the SNP. It's not a particularly controversial thing.
But from a pro-independence point of view I really want the SNP to be proponents and advocates for good arguments to be made to help progress the cause and rationale for independence, and I worry they've gone a bit too lazy and one-note in resorting to the "independence 'cos Tories bad" school of debate. That isn't particularly what independence should be about, to be honest.
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
Their hybrid technology is getting better, we hired a Yaris hybrid in Scotland and it did over 70 mpg even on highway driving. Toyota have probably calculated that there is going to be an enormous market for that particularly in the parts of the world where the infrastructure for EV's doesn't exist.
A friend got a Jaguar EV at work and it was an absolute disaster. It couldn't manage a 140 mile drive without running out of battery. Not fit for purpose. Toyota have probably decided that they shouldn't rush EV's to the market without mastering the technology.
Even my Corsa-e manages better range than that (200 miles ish). Charging not really been an issue
A friend worked in the car industry for a while - IT expert. He knew his electronics - he was continually surprised by finding companies, such as Jaguar, where the engineers treated electrification as “slap a battery and motor in - no real engineering there”.
Good EVs required careful optimisation and engineering every bit as much as ICE vehicles.
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
It's amazing how the free market works: if there is tremendous demand for lithium and nickel, people will find ways of producing it.
The market is subordinate to the laws of physics.
There is plenty of lithium and nickel in the world.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
A beautiful autumn day in Tallinn and a sense of optimism is beginning to emerge, as the situation for the Russian armed forces gets worse. The heavily damaged Kerch bridge is being used, but whether heavy loads will be able to use it is a very open question. Russian propaganda is still trying to minimize the attack, but it is clear that the timing could be very important. A large number of Russians are trapped in the tightening enclosure around Kherson, and the loss of so many troops would be a massive blow to the Russian ability to hold their ground along the whole front.
The disastrous mobilization is showing most Russian claims to be groundless. There is no equipment, no supplies, and actually no people. It turns out that so many bribed themselves out of military service over the past few years that even the so called reservists are not actually trained. The bribes were paid to unit commanders who "exempted" lads from the call up, the commanders still collected the conscript salaries of course. The idea that this mobilization can fix the manpower crisis in two or even six months is for the birds. In fact as threatening rhetoric increases, I keep thinking "you and whose army?".
Some are even suggesting that Russia might even be defeated this year, and as it becomes clear that there is no winter clothing, or even uniforms, you might not bet against it. For what its worth, the belief here is that things will probably run on to the spring or even summer, if Ukraine decides to go for Crimea as well.
On the other hand it is more an more obvious that Russia is entering a crisis. Their own economic situation is increasingly serious and the country is sanctioned and boycotted. It will not be Europe that cracks, even with high gas prices, it is clear that there is enough in reserve that we can get through it. For Russia the economic impact of losing at least 750,000 economically active men will send the economy into a deep recession and many sectors are now at a stand still.
A senior Estonian said to me a few days ago, that he thought that there was a significant change of heart underway, and although appointing the Butcher of Aleppo as operational commander was not good, at least he would understand that the war was not winnable for Russia.
We will see, but even as the scale of the Russian war crimes is emerging, the will of the Russians to fight is clearly falling. We are seeing a steady increase in the number of Russian troops surrendering. Let us hope that trend accelerates.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
Their hybrid technology is getting better, we hired a Yaris hybrid in Scotland and it did over 70 mpg even on highway driving. Toyota have probably calculated that there is going to be an enormous market for that particularly in the parts of the world where the infrastructure for EV's doesn't exist.
A friend got a Jaguar EV at work and it was an absolute disaster. It couldn't manage a 140 mile drive without running out of battery. Not fit for purpose. Toyota have probably decided that they shouldn't rush EV's to the market without mastering the technology.
That's pretty crap for a Jag. My Kia eniro does 290 miles in the summer, 230 miles in the winter with lights and heating on, on a full charge. Great build quality too. He should trade in.
I think hybrids will have a place too, there are many parts of the world without the EV infrastructure outside Europe and North America, so makes sense there.
A beautiful autumn day in Tallinn and a sense of optimism is beginning to emerge, as the situation for the Russian armed forces gets worse. The heavily damaged Kerch bridge is being used, but whether heavy loads will be able to use it is a very open question. Russian propaganda is still trying to minimize the attack, but it is clear that the timing could be very important. A large number of Russians are trapped in the tightening enclosure around Kherson, and the loss of so many troops would be a massive blow to the Russian ability to hold their ground along the whole front.
The disastrous mobilization is showing most Russian claims to be groundless. There is no equipment, no supplies, and actually no people. It turns out that so many bribed themselves out of military service over the past few years that even the so called reservists are not actually trained. The bribes were paid to unit commanders who "exempted" lads from the call up, the commanders still collected the conscript salaries of course. The idea that this mobilization can fix the manpower crisis in two or even six months is for the birds. In fact as threatening rhetoric increases, I keep thinking "you and whose army?".
Some are even suggesting that Russia might even be defeated this year, and as it becomes clear that there is no winter clothing, or even uniforms, you might not bet against it. For what its worth, the belief here is that things will probably run on to the spring or even summer, if Ukraine decides to go for Crimea as well.
On the other hand it is more an more obvious that Russia is entering a crisis. Their own economic situation is increasingly serious and the country is sanctioned and boycotted. It will not be Europe that cracks, even with high gas prices, it is clear that there is enough in reserve that we can get through it. For Russia the economic impact of losing at least 750,000 economically active men will send the economy into a deep recession and many sectors are now at a stand still.
A senior Estonian said to me a few days ago, that he thought that there was a significant change of heart underway, and although appointing the Butcher of Aleppo as operational commander was not good, at least he would understand that the war was not winnable for Russia.
We will see, but even as the scale of the Russian war crimes is emerging, the will of the Russians to fight is clearly falling. We are seeing a steady increase in the number of Russian troops surrendering. Let us hope that trend accelerates.
Good luck in Tallinn @Cicero. I suspect one element that may also play into the Russians' calculation is the increasing ability of the Ukrainians to strike high profile targets that are supposedly secure / under watch.
In regards to Sturgeon's mild statement of her opinion on the Conservative party: is the UK political media alright in the head? Do they need help? Are the conscious of what they are doing?
Sturgeon made a mistake - she didn't need to be hostile. A bit of condescension or even pity would have been more apposite.
We can all nod in sorrow at the plight of the Conservative Party and be sympathetic at its impending shellacking (copyright @TSE) at the next election....
In private and internally we can of course all be laughing and getting in the popcorn.
The SNP have got wall to wall coverage on how much they hate the Tories.
Know how many Tory votes they need? Zero. Know how many Labour votes they need? As many as they can get.
This is the least mistakey thing in the history of non mistakes ever.
I don't see it as particularly a big deal, especially given the equivalent hostility the Tories (and Labour) show the SNP. It's not a particularly controversial thing.
But from a pro-independence point of view I really want the SNP to be proponents and advocates for good arguments to be made to help progress the cause and rationale for independence, and I worry they've gone a bit too lazy and one-note in resorting to the "independence 'cos Tories bad" school of debate. That isn't particularly what independence should be about, to be honest.
The main reason “independence ‘cos Tories bad” is a thing is because Tories have been a minority in Scotland for 63 years, but act as if they are the majority. Tories are democratically bad. I agree, however, that Tories bad is just a minor reason for independence. Only the media think it is the major reason, and they are (intentionally?) ignorant of Scotland.
A beautiful autumn day in Tallinn and a sense of optimism is beginning to emerge, as the situation for the Russian armed forces gets worse. The heavily damaged Kerch bridge is being used, but whether heavy loads will be able to use it is a very open question. Russian propaganda is still trying to minimize the attack, but it is clear that the timing could be very important. A large number of Russians are trapped in the tightening enclosure around Kherson, and the loss of so many troops would be a massive blow to the Russian ability to hold their ground along the whole front.
The disastrous mobilization is showing most Russian claims to be groundless. There is no equipment, no supplies, and actually no people. It turns out that so many bribed themselves out of military service over the past few years that even the so called reservists are not actually trained. The bribes were paid to unit commanders who "exempted" lads from the call up, the commanders still collected the conscript salaries of course. The idea that this mobilization can fix the manpower crisis in two or even six months is for the birds. In fact as threatening rhetoric increases, I keep thinking "you and whose army?".
Some are even suggesting that Russia might even be defeated this year, and as it becomes clear that there is no winter clothing, or even uniforms, you might not bet against it. For what its worth, the belief here is that things will probably run on to the spring or even summer, if Ukraine decides to go for Crimea as well.
On the other hand it is more an more obvious that Russia is entering a crisis. Their own economic situation is increasingly serious and the country is sanctioned and boycotted. It will not be Europe that cracks, even with high gas prices, it is clear that there is enough in reserve that we can get through it. For Russia the economic impact of losing at least 750,000 economically active men will send the economy into a deep recession and many sectors are now at a stand still.
A senior Estonian said to me a few days ago, that he thought that there was a significant change of heart underway, and although appointing the Butcher of Aleppo as operational commander was not good, at least he would understand that the war was not winnable for Russia.
We will see, but even as the scale of the Russian war crimes is emerging, the will of the Russians to fight is clearly falling. We are seeing a steady increase in the number of Russian troops surrendering. Let us hope that trend accelerates.
Good luck in Tallinn @Cicero. I suspect one element that may also play into the Russians' calculation is the increasing ability of the Ukrainians to strike high profile targets that are supposedly secure / under watch.
I suspect 1 reason why Russians are surrendering is that the introduction of new recruits allows some longer serving soldiers to “hide” or at least attempt to hide their crimes
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
I thought that the professed benefits have always been asserted to be long term and/or what you might call 'moral' in character. So, arguing that there is no short term pain when there manifestly *is*, would seem to undermine the faith you can put in the prediction of unlimited jam tomorrow.
And then all we are left with is the "moral" aspect; which is unarguable. If you believe in that bit, you believe in it, and if you don't, you don't. No amount of argument will change either side there.
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
It's amazing how the free market works: if there is tremendous demand for lithium and nickel, people will find ways of producing it.
The market is subordinate to the laws of physics.
There is plenty of lithium and nickel in the world.
And when they run out...?
Cut a hole in the floor. The solution was broadcast weekly when I was a child, so I can't claim any special genius.
A beautiful autumn day in Tallinn and a sense of optimism is beginning to emerge, as the situation for the Russian armed forces gets worse. The heavily damaged Kerch bridge is being used, but whether heavy loads will be able to use it is a very open question. Russian propaganda is still trying to minimize the attack, but it is clear that the timing could be very important. A large number of Russians are trapped in the tightening enclosure around Kherson, and the loss of so many troops would be a massive blow to the Russian ability to hold their ground along the whole front.
The disastrous mobilization is showing most Russian claims to be groundless. There is no equipment, no supplies, and actually no people. It turns out that so many bribed themselves out of military service over the past few years that even the so called reservists are not actually trained. The bribes were paid to unit commanders who "exempted" lads from the call up, the commanders still collected the conscript salaries of course. The idea that this mobilization can fix the manpower crisis in two or even six months is for the birds. In fact as threatening rhetoric increases, I keep thinking "you and whose army?".
Some are even suggesting that Russia might even be defeated this year, and as it becomes clear that there is no winter clothing, or even uniforms, you might not bet against it. For what its worth, the belief here is that things will probably run on to the spring or even summer, if Ukraine decides to go for Crimea as well.
On the other hand it is more an more obvious that Russia is entering a crisis. Their own economic situation is increasingly serious and the country is sanctioned and boycotted. It will not be Europe that cracks, even with high gas prices, it is clear that there is enough in reserve that we can get through it. For Russia the economic impact of losing at least 750,000 economically active men will send the economy into a deep recession and many sectors are now at a stand still.
A senior Estonian said to me a few days ago, that he thought that there was a significant change of heart underway, and although appointing the Butcher of Aleppo as operational commander was not good, at least he would understand that the war was not winnable for Russia.
We will see, but even as the scale of the Russian war crimes is emerging, the will of the Russians to fight is clearly falling. We are seeing a steady increase in the number of Russian troops surrendering. Let us hope that trend accelerates.
The damage to the Kerch bridge could be a double whammy for Russia. First, the embarrassment of the attack. Second, the embarrassment when it collapses under the weight of a Russian tank.
Western Europe needs a mild, windy winter. Ukraine needs a cold, windy, snowy winter.
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
I thought that the professed benefits have always been asserted to be long term and/or what you might call 'moral' in character. So, arguing that there is no short term pain when there manifestly *is*, would seem to undermine the faith you can put in the prediction of unlimited jam tomorrow.
And then all we are left with is the "moral" aspect; which is unarguable. If you believe in that bit, you believe in it, and if you don't, you don't. No amount of argument will change either side there.
Sorry. I mentioned Brexit. I'll go and do some kind of penance.
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
I thought that the professed benefits have always been asserted to be long term and/or what you might call 'moral' in character. So, arguing that there is no short term pain when there manifestly *is*, would seem to undermine the faith you can put in the prediction of unlimited jam tomorrow.
And then all we are left with is the "moral" aspect; which is unarguable. If you believe in that bit, you believe in it, and if you don't, you don't. No amount of argument will change either side there.
Brexit is like having a baby. It will fuck up your life for the first 0-4 years, with some joys interim, then it gets a lot better
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
I thought that the professed benefits have always been asserted to be long term and/or what you might call 'moral' in character. So, arguing that there is no short term pain when there manifestly *is*, would seem to undermine the faith you can put in the prediction of unlimited jam tomorrow.
And then all we are left with is the "moral" aspect; which is unarguable. If you believe in that bit, you believe in it, and if you don't, you don't. No amount of argument will change either side there.
Brexit is like having a baby. It will fuck up your life for the first 0-4 years, with some joys interim, then it gets a lot better
Brexit is like cancer. It will fuck up your life for the first 0-4 years, Afterwards, you will either have recovered or you will be totally fucked up. Which is it going to be?
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
I thought that the professed benefits have always been asserted to be long term and/or what you might call 'moral' in character. So, arguing that there is no short term pain when there manifestly *is*, would seem to undermine the faith you can put in the prediction of unlimited jam tomorrow.
And then all we are left with is the "moral" aspect; which is unarguable. If you believe in that bit, you believe in it, and if you don't, you don't. No amount of argument will change either side there.
Brexit is like having a baby. It will fuck up your life for the first 0-40 years, with some joys interim, then it gets a lot better
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
Express tonight saying Truss will drop her opposition to benefits rising by inflation.
So. Where are these "savings" to pay for tax cuts to come from? If there isn't Tory assent for benefit cuts I can't see health and education cuts. I should imagine by announcing a spending freeze from 24-5 till the end of the decade. But they won't be in government then. So I can't see markets falling for that little trick.
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
There is a converse argument that's been forgotten in the years since the vote: the single market was never completed and probably never could be because of differences in language and business and political cultures.
It's become an article of faith that the single market is a good thing economically, but the actual evidence for it is fairly thin on the ground. Having a deal which gives us zero-tariffs and quotas (which was not on offer before we joined the EEC) but also doesn't oblige us to follow everything Brussels does is very far from being self-evidently bad.
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
There is a converse argument that's been forgotten in the years since the vote: the single market was never completed and probably never could be because of differences in language and business and political cultures.
It's become an article of faith that the single market is a good thing economically, but the actual evidence for it is fairly thin on the ground. Having a deal which gives us zero-tariffs and quotas (which was not on offer before we joined the EEC) but also doesn't oblige us to follow everything Brussels does is very far from being self-evidently bad.
I think the argument is that the immediate adjustments to a post-Brexit world - ie new barriers to trade and travel - will automatically be bad. And I agree with that. They will be bad. They are bad. Annoying and sometimes burdensome, even ruinous
As a Brexiteer I have always admitted this. But then I counter that joining the EEC ruined plenty of trade and caused a lot of grief, which in places grew over time. And the burden of non-democracy became insupportable
So we Left. Rejoice in our democracy, now rightly restored to Westminster
Express tonight saying Truss will drop her opposition to benefits rising by inflation.
Guardian and Sun saying the same thing
Her leadership campaign u-turn over regional pay seems to be increasingly a harbinger of what was to come under her premiership. One bonkers idea after another, one u-turn after another.
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
There is a converse argument that's been forgotten in the years since the vote: the single market was never completed and probably never could be because of differences in language and business and political cultures.
It's become an article of faith that the single market is a good thing economically, but the actual evidence for it is fairly thin on the ground. Having a deal which gives us zero-tariffs and quotas (which was not on offer before we joined the EEC) but also doesn't oblige us to follow everything Brussels does is very far from being self-evidently bad.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
Europe is not Syria. It's one thing launching nerve agents which, to be frank, most people in Europe do not care that much about and know less. It's another launching it in Europe. Also, I'm sure the Ukrainians and everyone else would quickly point out the parallels between Vlad and a certain Adolf H when it came to using gas to get what he wants...
So. Wigan Athletic v Cardiff yesterday was played with 2 different sized goals. Cardiff scored with a shot which hit the bar and bounced into the goal which was two inches higher than the other. Sounds like a decent way of having a handicap tournament.
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
There is a converse argument that's been forgotten in the years since the vote: the single market was never completed and probably never could be because of differences in language and business and political cultures.
It's become an article of faith that the single market is a good thing economically, but the actual evidence for it is fairly thin on the ground. Having a deal which gives us zero-tariffs and quotas (which was not on offer before we joined the EEC) but also doesn't oblige us to follow everything Brussels does is very far from being self-evidently bad.
Is that likely to be on offer?
That's what we've got (with the exception of the NI protocol).
A beautiful autumn day in Tallinn and a sense of optimism is beginning to emerge, as the situation for the Russian armed forces gets worse. The heavily damaged Kerch bridge is being used, but whether heavy loads will be able to use it is a very open question. Russian propaganda is still trying to minimize the attack, but it is clear that the timing could be very important. A large number of Russians are trapped in the tightening enclosure around Kherson, and the loss of so many troops would be a massive blow to the Russian ability to hold their ground along the whole front.
The disastrous mobilization is showing most Russian claims to be groundless. There is no equipment, no supplies, and actually no people. It turns out that so many bribed themselves out of military service over the past few years that even the so called reservists are not actually trained. The bribes were paid to unit commanders who "exempted" lads from the call up, the commanders still collected the conscript salaries of course. The idea that this mobilization can fix the manpower crisis in two or even six months is for the birds. In fact as threatening rhetoric increases, I keep thinking "you and whose army?".
Some are even suggesting that Russia might even be defeated this year, and as it becomes clear that there is no winter clothing, or even uniforms, you might not bet against it. For what its worth, the belief here is that things will probably run on to the spring or even summer, if Ukraine decides to go for Crimea as well.
On the other hand it is more an more obvious that Russia is entering a crisis. Their own economic situation is increasingly serious and the country is sanctioned and boycotted. It will not be Europe that cracks, even with high gas prices, it is clear that there is enough in reserve that we can get through it. For Russia the economic impact of losing at least 750,000 economically active men will send the economy into a deep recession and many sectors are now at a stand still.
A senior Estonian said to me a few days ago, that he thought that there was a significant change of heart underway, and although appointing the Butcher of Aleppo as operational commander was not good, at least he would understand that the war was not winnable for Russia.
We will see, but even as the scale of the Russian war crimes is emerging, the will of the Russians to fight is clearly falling. We are seeing a steady increase in the number of Russian troops surrendering. Let us hope that trend accelerates.
I really enjoy the perspective these posts give. Please keep them coming.
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
There is a converse argument that's been forgotten in the years since the vote: the single market was never completed and probably never could be because of differences in language and business and political cultures.
It's become an article of faith that the single market is a good thing economically, but the actual evidence for it is fairly thin on the ground. Having a deal which gives us zero-tariffs and quotas (which was not on offer before we joined the EEC) but also doesn't oblige us to follow everything Brussels does is very far from being self-evidently bad.
I think the argument is that the immediate adjustments to a post-Brexit world - ie new barriers to trade and travel - will automatically be bad. And I agree with that. They will be bad. They are bad. Annoying and sometimes burdensome, even ruinous
As a Brexiteer I have always admitted this. But then I counter that joining the EEC ruined plenty of trade and caused a lot of grief, which in places grew over time. And the burden of non-democracy became insupportable
So we Left. Rejoice in our democracy, now rightly restored to Westminster
A pity that Westminster are making such an arse of democracy.
Are the Sturgeon comments just a pretty obvious attempt to re-claim the Tory-hating crown from Labour? A signal that the SNP are actually a bit worried about Keir-surge?
@ByronTau France's national railway SNCF tried to help California build its high speed rail project but ended up quitting, saying "they were leaving for North Africa, which was less politically dysfunctional."
It has been alleged that Musk proposed his brain-dead Hyperloop idea to kill California's high-speed rail project. There had to be some ulterior motive behind the madness.
The high speed rail project is trying to kill itself, because of the same reasons that the Senate Launch System exists.
In America, mega project government spending is about (in order of priority)
1) giving money to the right companies 2) who then employ a pyramid of other, right companies 3) this pyramid of companies remembers who their friends are and donates to the political campaigns of the… 4) … coalition of politicians that voted the money for the project : 9,675) the actual professed aim of the project.
The aim of the California high speed rail project is not really to build high speed rail on California.
Healthcare in the USA is ran in much the same way, which is how the American so-called "private" healthcare system costs much more per capita in taxpayers money than the NHS does.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
What conventional missiles do they have left? Russia are still taking pot-shots at civilian accommodation (war crimes, surely) but there is no indication that they have the missile supplies to cause a major problem. Last week they were trying to strike Odesa with suicide drones but the number of them have now greatly reduced too. I just don't see where Russia is going to get the missiles needed now to cause big problems.
Are the Sturgeon comments just a pretty obvious attempt to re-claim the Tory-hating crown from Labour? A signal that the SNP are actually a bit worried about Keir-surge?
Hating Tories is not confined to one party. It’s the natural feeling of all right thinking people.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
It was widely predicted that the Ukrainians would go for the bridge; that Putin would respond with a Nuke. Nowt yet.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
It was widely predicted that the Ukrainians would go for the bridge; that Putin would respond with a Nuke. Nowt yet.
It’s possible that he has already tried to respond with a nuke, but like most of the rest of his armaments, it failed to work.
A beautiful autumn day in Tallinn and a sense of optimism is beginning to emerge, as the situation for the Russian armed forces gets worse. The heavily damaged Kerch bridge is being used, but whether heavy loads will be able to use it is a very open question. Russian propaganda is still trying to minimize the attack, but it is clear that the timing could be very important. A large number of Russians are trapped in the tightening enclosure around Kherson, and the loss of so many troops would be a massive blow to the Russian ability to hold their ground along the whole front.
The disastrous mobilization is showing most Russian claims to be groundless. There is no equipment, no supplies, and actually no people. It turns out that so many bribed themselves out of military service over the past few years that even the so called reservists are not actually trained. The bribes were paid to unit commanders who "exempted" lads from the call up, the commanders still collected the conscript salaries of course. The idea that this mobilization can fix the manpower crisis in two or even six months is for the birds. In fact as threatening rhetoric increases, I keep thinking "you and whose army?".
Some are even suggesting that Russia might even be defeated this year, and as it becomes clear that there is no winter clothing, or even uniforms, you might not bet against it. For what its worth, the belief here is that things will probably run on to the spring or even summer, if Ukraine decides to go for Crimea as well.
On the other hand it is more an more obvious that Russia is entering a crisis. Their own economic situation is increasingly serious and the country is sanctioned and boycotted. It will not be Europe that cracks, even with high gas prices, it is clear that there is enough in reserve that we can get through it. For Russia the economic impact of losing at least 750,000 economically active men will send the economy into a deep recession and many sectors are now at a stand still.
A senior Estonian said to me a few days ago, that he thought that there was a significant change of heart underway, and although appointing the Butcher of Aleppo as operational commander was not good, at least he would understand that the war was not winnable for Russia.
We will see, but even as the scale of the Russian war crimes is emerging, the will of the Russians to fight is clearly falling. We are seeing a steady increase in the number of Russian troops surrendering. Let us hope that trend accelerates.
Good luck in Tallinn @Cicero. I suspect one element that may also play into the Russians' calculation is the increasing ability of the Ukrainians to strike high profile targets that are supposedly secure / under watch.
Yes, the drone attack on the SU22 bombers at Shaykovka airbase north of Kursk in some ways more significant. Halfway to Moscow.
So Truss is prepared to abandon her big policy announcements to keep her job.
Kwasi should be updating his CV...
Can't get them through. She's been in a ridiculous hurry. What was wrong with settling in, doing energy, getting through the winter in one piece I'll never know. Very immature behaviour. Hubristic too. Usually hubris takes a while to set in. Seems to have been immediate here.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
Europe is not Syria. It's one thing launching nerve agents which, to be frank, most people in Europe do not care that much about and know less. It's another launching it in Europe. Also, I'm sure the Ukrainians and everyone else would quickly point out the parallels between Vlad and a certain Adolf H when it came to using gas to get what he wants...
He did it in England and no one gave a f@ck. Saddam did it on a grand scale - “oh how terrible. When does Corrie start?”.
There would be a strong U.S. response but I doubt it would involve American flown jets and missiles bombing russians.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
It was widely predicted that the Ukrainians would go for the bridge; that Putin would respond with a Nuke. Nowt yet.
I'm not sure who is predicting that.
As Leon says, further escalations are likely, but Putin won't play the nuclear card until he has literally no other cards left to play. When he does finally play that card, I predict it will be in the form of a test of a small battlefield nuclear device on his own soil - designed to spook the markets and the west, but pretty hard to respond to.
We're a way off that stage yet, but things continue to escalate. What comes next? Sabotage of the north sea oil pipeline, or a cut internet cable, perhaps?
There's a common delusion that, because you have been successful in one field, you are bound to be in another.
Indeed, oil companies are finding that out now with their vast spend on green energy coming to nothing while green energy specialists run rings around them.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
It was widely predicted that the Ukrainians would go for the bridge; that Putin would respond with a Nuke. Nowt yet.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
I am absolutely certain we should.
This needs to be finished, there will never be a better time to finish it than when Russia has lost the war.
Moscow won't be threatened, so there'll be no need for nukes or any other nonsense, any more than there was at the fall of Kabul.
But the war can end with Crimea returned to Ukraine. The lesson will be reinforced that borders can't be redrawn by invasion, and it will discourage nuclear proliferation (thus reducing the risk of apocalypse) showing again that even nations without nukes can defend themselves and regain their territory against those with them.
If you want to avoid risk of nuclear confrontation for the long term, we need to press the advantage and end this now, but making it clear to Russian Generals and politicians (beyond just Putin) that we have no interest in any of Russia's territory, so long as they pull out of Ukraine.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
Europe is not Syria. It's one thing launching nerve agents which, to be frank, most people in Europe do not care that much about and know less. It's another launching it in Europe. Also, I'm sure the Ukrainians and everyone else would quickly point out the parallels between Vlad and a certain Adolf H when it came to using gas to get what he wants...
He did it in England and no one gave a f@ck. Saddam did it on a grand scale - “oh how terrible. When does Corrie start?”.
There would be a strong U.S. response but I doubt it would involve American flown jets and missiles bombing russians.
Plenty of people gave a fuck when he did it in England. We started training the Ukrainian army on a massive scale as a response.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
So Truss is prepared to abandon her big policy announcements to keep her job.
Kwasi should be updating his CV...
Can't get them through. She's been in a ridiculous hurry. What was wrong with settling in, doing energy, getting through the winter in one piece I'll never know. Very immature behaviour. Hubristic too. Usually hubris takes a while to set in. Seems to have been immediate here.
Modesty prevents me from reminding everyone that I said the power would go straight to her head within weeks and she would be late stage Thatcher without the earlier bits.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
Europe is not Syria. It's one thing launching nerve agents which, to be frank, most people in Europe do not care that much about and know less. It's another launching it in Europe. Also, I'm sure the Ukrainians and everyone else would quickly point out the parallels between Vlad and a certain Adolf H when it came to using gas to get what he wants...
He did it in England and no one gave a f@ck. Saddam did it on a grand scale - “oh how terrible. When does Corrie start?”.
There would be a strong U.S. response but I doubt it would involve American flown jets and missiles bombing russians.
Salisbury had plausible deniability, using nerve agents in the most high profile event in the world at the moment wouldn't.
He also doesn't know what Ukraine would do in retaliation. They bombed the bridge. The TV tower in Moscow is apparently on fire tonight. If I was Putin, I would be wondering how much the SBU are close to being able to take him out. Which is the major reason I suspect he is not doing anything major about this.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
Europe is not Syria. It's one thing launching nerve agents which, to be frank, most people in Europe do not care that much about and know less. It's another launching it in Europe. Also, I'm sure the Ukrainians and everyone else would quickly point out the parallels between Vlad and a certain Adolf H when it came to using gas to get what he wants...
He did it in England and no one gave a f@ck. Saddam did it on a grand scale - “oh how terrible. When does Corrie start?”.
There would be a strong U.S. response but I doubt it would involve American flown jets and missiles bombing russians.
Plenty of people gave a fuck when he did it in England. We started training the Ukrainian army on a massive scale as a response.
I think that's right - compare the reaction of the West to the invasion in February with the non-response to Crimea in 2014.
Between the two Russia had acquired a proto-pariah status, due to numerous actions, including Salisbury.
They were ripe for full pariah status which Putin sealed by invading Ukraine in February.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
It isn't. The Tory circle has been squared for years. But the endpoint has been reached. Because they can't agree what they are even for anymore.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
There ought to be a significant fiscal tightening already due to inflation, combined with fiscal drag increasing tax receipts, and below-inflation wage growth reducing real expenditure.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
Europe is not Syria. It's one thing launching nerve agents which, to be frank, most people in Europe do not care that much about and know less. It's another launching it in Europe. Also, I'm sure the Ukrainians and everyone else would quickly point out the parallels between Vlad and a certain Adolf H when it came to using gas to get what he wants...
He did it in England and no one gave a f@ck. Saddam did it on a grand scale - “oh how terrible. When does Corrie start?”.
There would be a strong U.S. response but I doubt it would involve American flown jets and missiles bombing russians.
Plenty of people gave a fuck when he did it in England. We started training the Ukrainian army on a massive scale as a response.
Not really. A few months later the West still turned up to putins World Cup circus, we took no meaningful sanctions actions, continued to source 20% of our diesel from Russian refineries, nord stream 2 progressed etc…
Training Ukraine army was in 2015 in response to crimea invasion, not Salisbury.
This time context is different of course. But we would still not see a direct military response by nato in response to a Russian gas attack on a non nato country.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
Europe is not Syria. It's one thing launching nerve agents which, to be frank, most people in Europe do not care that much about and know less. It's another launching it in Europe. Also, I'm sure the Ukrainians and everyone else would quickly point out the parallels between Vlad and a certain Adolf H when it came to using gas to get what he wants...
He did it in England and no one gave a f@ck. Saddam did it on a grand scale - “oh how terrible. When does Corrie start?”.
There would be a strong U.S. response but I doubt it would involve American flown jets and missiles bombing russians.
Plenty of people gave a fuck when he did it in England. We started training the Ukrainian army on a massive scale as a response.
Revenge is a dish best eaten with a side-salad of polonium.....
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
Europe is not Syria. It's one thing launching nerve agents which, to be frank, most people in Europe do not care that much about and know less. It's another launching it in Europe. Also, I'm sure the Ukrainians and everyone else would quickly point out the parallels between Vlad and a certain Adolf H when it came to using gas to get what he wants...
He did it in England and no one gave a f@ck. Saddam did it on a grand scale - “oh how terrible. When does Corrie start?”.
There would be a strong U.S. response but I doubt it would involve American flown jets and missiles bombing russians.
Plenty of people gave a fuck when he did it in England. We started training the Ukrainian army on a massive scale as a response.
I think that's right - compare the reaction of the West to the invasion in February with the non-response to Crimea in 2014.
Between the two Russia had acquired a proto-pariah status, due to numerous actions, including Salisbury.
They were ripe for full pariah status which Putin sealed by invading Ukraine in February.
Its worth noting that there was a response to Crimea, but the response wasn't very visible to us at the time.
The years between Crimea and today were well-used to transform the Ukrainian army into a worthy adversary that it is unlikely it would have been had we gone all-in supporting Ukraine eight years earlier.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Doesn't the lack of reaction over Kerch make you question your theories? As has been discussed the Kerch bridge is totemic for Putin. It is the physical symbol of Crimea being reunited with Russia. Putin personally opened it by driving a truck across etc etc. And everything we know about his personality says that he hates losing face. So he surely wanted a massive reaction.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
No, far more to be lost than gained from such rash behaviour.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
15%, 40%, 0.4%?
None of you can ever be proved wrong of course.
And we've no context of these numbers relative to a pre-Ukraine invasion position either.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Doesn't the lack of reaction over Kerch make you question your theories? As has been discussed the Kerch bridge is totemic for Putin. It is the physical symbol of Crimea being reunited with Russia. Putin personally opened it by driving a truck across etc etc. And everything we know about his personality says that he hates losing face. So he surely wanted a massive reaction.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
Yes. For sure. If new data comes in, form new opinions
If Putin does nothing spectacular in reaction to the Kerch Bridge explosion, then that means he is either all gong and no dinner, or he has been squished by his generals/aides, who do not want to die for Kyiv
Either of these is highly encouraging. But I still - on balance - expect him to respond, in some form. The next week or two will tell us
I agree the Kerch Bridge is totemic, and the most important of his "red lines" to date
Come the revolution another who will be rotting in a jail cell next to the stain on humanity Braverman . I will be enforcing a left wing liberal dictatorship!
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Come the revolution another who will be rotting in a jail cell next to the stain on humanity Braverman . I will be enforcing a left wing liberal dictatorship!
Come the revolution another who will be rotting in a jail cell next to the stain on humanity Braverman . I will be enforcing a left wing liberal dictatorship!
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
Comments
Overcome your NORMALCY BIAS
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
https://twitter.com/tegmark/status/1578911288859987968?s=20&t=Y_v4Kc_03j5iCGyPYaKtww
Here's why I think there's now a one-in-six chance of an imminent global #NuclearWar, and why I appreciate
@elonmusk
and others urging de-escalation, which is IMHO in the national security interest of all nations: https://lesswrong.com/posts/Dod9AWz8Rp4Svdpof/why-i-think-there-s-a-one-in-six-chance-of-an-imminent
Any other takers? Surely the DUP are fans so half of Northren Ireland might be up for it.
Any argument that Brexit played no part in our diminished status is as convincing as Truss and Kwasi claiming the Special Fiscal Operation didn't crash the markets
But from a pro-independence point of view I really want the SNP to be proponents and advocates for good arguments to be made to help progress the cause and rationale for independence, and I worry they've gone a bit too lazy and one-note in resorting to the "independence 'cos Tories bad" school of debate. That isn't particularly what independence should be about, to be honest.
Good EVs required careful optimisation and engineering every bit as much as ICE vehicles.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
The disastrous mobilization is showing most Russian claims to be groundless. There is no equipment, no supplies, and actually no people. It turns out that so many bribed themselves out of military service over the past few years that even the so called reservists are not actually trained. The bribes were paid to unit commanders who "exempted" lads from the call up, the commanders still collected the conscript salaries of course. The idea that this mobilization can fix the manpower crisis in two or even six months is for the birds. In fact as threatening rhetoric increases, I keep thinking "you and whose army?".
Some are even suggesting that Russia might even be defeated this year, and as it becomes clear that there is no winter clothing, or even uniforms, you might not bet against it. For what its worth, the belief here is that things will probably run on to the spring or even summer, if Ukraine decides to go for Crimea as well.
On the other hand it is more an more obvious that Russia is entering a crisis. Their own economic situation is increasingly serious and the country is sanctioned and boycotted. It will not be Europe that cracks, even with high gas prices, it is clear that there is enough in reserve that we can get through it. For Russia the economic impact of losing at least 750,000 economically active men will send the economy into a deep recession and many sectors are now at a stand still.
A senior Estonian said to me a few days ago, that he thought that there was a significant change of heart underway, and although appointing the Butcher of Aleppo as operational commander was not good, at least he would understand that the war was not winnable for Russia.
We will see, but even as the scale of the Russian war crimes is emerging, the will of the Russians to fight is clearly falling. We are seeing a steady increase in the number of Russian troops surrendering. Let us hope that trend accelerates.
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
I think hybrids will have a place too, there are many parts of the world without the EV infrastructure outside Europe and North America, so makes sense there.
ICYMI: "For every 100,000 new COVID-19 cases per week, he found, “no smell” reviews increased by a quarter of a percentage point in the next week."
https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/06/10/yankee-candle-reviews-and-covid-19-trends/
I thought that the professed benefits have always been asserted to be long term and/or what you might call 'moral' in character. So, arguing that there is no short term pain when there manifestly *is*, would seem to undermine the faith you can put in the prediction of unlimited jam tomorrow.
And then all we are left with is the "moral" aspect; which is unarguable. If you believe in that bit, you believe in it, and if you don't, you don't. No amount of argument will change either side there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEHl-o-2Dss
Western Europe needs a mild, windy winter. Ukraine needs a cold, windy, snowy winter.
Before Brexit he was an MEP and we could vote him out.
Now he is a Lord and will be making our laws forever, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Brexit gave us less democracy....
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
If there isn't Tory assent for benefit cuts I can't see health and education cuts.
I should imagine by announcing a spending freeze from 24-5 till the end of the decade.
But they won't be in government then. So I can't see markets falling for that little trick.
Kwasi should be updating his CV...
It's become an article of faith that the single market is a good thing economically, but the actual evidence for it is fairly thin on the ground. Having a deal which gives us zero-tariffs and quotas (which was not on offer before we joined the EEC) but also doesn't oblige us to follow everything Brussels does is very far from being self-evidently bad.
As a Brexiteer I have always admitted this. But then I counter that joining the EEC ruined plenty of trade and caused a lot of grief, which in places grew over time. And the burden of non-democracy became insupportable
So we Left. Rejoice in our democracy, now rightly restored to Westminster
Tic, toc...
Cardiff scored with a shot which hit the bar and bounced into the goal which was two inches higher than the other.
Sounds like a decent way of having a handicap tournament.
We will want our democracy back
There would be a strong U.S. response but I doubt it would involve American flown jets and missiles bombing russians.
As Leon says, further escalations are likely, but Putin won't play the nuclear card until he has literally no other cards left to play. When he does finally play that card, I predict it will be in the form of a test of a small battlefield nuclear device on his own soil - designed to spook the markets and the west, but pretty hard to respond to.
We're a way off that stage yet, but things continue to escalate. What comes next? Sabotage of the north sea oil pipeline, or a cut internet cable, perhaps?
This needs to be finished, there will never be a better time to finish it than when Russia has lost the war.
Moscow won't be threatened, so there'll be no need for nukes or any other nonsense, any more than there was at the fall of Kabul.
But the war can end with Crimea returned to Ukraine. The lesson will be reinforced that borders can't be redrawn by invasion, and it will discourage nuclear proliferation (thus reducing the risk of apocalypse) showing again that even nations without nukes can defend themselves and regain their territory against those with them.
If you want to avoid risk of nuclear confrontation for the long term, we need to press the advantage and end this now, but making it clear to Russian Generals and politicians (beyond just Putin) that we have no interest in any of Russia's territory, so long as they pull out of Ukraine.
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Hope she survives until 2024.
Not remotely in power
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
He also doesn't know what Ukraine would do in retaliation. They bombed the bridge. The TV tower in Moscow is apparently on fire tonight. If I was Putin, I would be wondering how much the SBU are close to being able to take him out. Which is the major reason I suspect he is not doing anything major about this.
Between the two Russia had acquired a proto-pariah status, due to numerous actions, including Salisbury.
They were ripe for full pariah status which Putin sealed by invading Ukraine in February.
But the endpoint has been reached. Because they can't agree what they are even for anymore.
Training Ukraine army was in 2015 in response to crimea invasion, not Salisbury.
This time context is different of course. But we would still not see a direct military response by nato in response to a Russian gas attack on a non nato country.
The years between Crimea and today were well-used to transform the Ukrainian army into a worthy adversary that it is unlikely it would have been had we gone all-in supporting Ukraine eight years earlier.
I would put higher. More like 40%.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
None of you can ever be proved wrong of course.
If Putin does nothing spectacular in reaction to the Kerch Bridge explosion, then that means he is either all gong and no dinner, or he has been squished by his generals/aides, who do not want to die for Kyiv
Either of these is highly encouraging. But I still - on balance - expect him to respond, in some form. The next week or two will tell us
I agree the Kerch Bridge is totemic, and the most important of his "red lines" to date