Look. I yield to no one in belief that Putin's an idiot, but he isn't going to nuke Belarus.
That's about shelter from conventional bombing by the Ukrainians, who would hopefully be able to take out every single one of Belarus' government buildings and Lukashenko's stolen private residences in the first hour of the war.
The threads stuff isn't about nuclear war today or tomorrow - it's about the gradual escalation of events that may eventually lead to direct conflict between NATO and Russia a few months down the line.
It's all boiling frog theory stuff. Things escalate so slowly, it's hard to see the bigger picture. Six months ago, did anyone foresee the Nordstream 2 pipeline being blown up, Iran sending missiles to Russia, or talk of Ukrainian missiles taking out every last government building in Belarus inside the hour?
Things continue to escalate. We remain on the Threads timeline.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
I went to King's Cross today and all I got was this picture:
Very clean. It's a clean machine.
Bah. Over-rated LNER rubbish.
Not a patch on anything made at Derby. Or Crewe.
As a young boy I used to cycle to Scremerston just south of Berwick and got to know the signalman
On this day he invited me into the signal box to which I was absolutely awe struck, and amid the clanging of various bells he asked me to pull a lever, which was quite heavy, then another one, and he said you have just signalled through the Flying Scotsman as per photo and as it passed under me in full steam I was on top of the world
The Flying Scotsman, Mallard, Union of South Africa and others, as I said the other day, passed our classroom regularly in full steam and I have been in love with steam trains ever since
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
Not Kherson. It was founded by Catherine the Great and they have a tenuous hold on at the moment, so nuking it would be bizarre.
And that has stopped him when, exactly?
It was a reference to sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, by the way.
Zaporizhzhia is a different oblast.
Before making silly comments, please check a map. You will find the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is on the same river as Kherson and not far away.
It's further than London to Birmingham. Why not just admit that you named the wrong place?
I didn't. I knew exactly what I was saying.
Are you suggesting that if a nuclear power station blew in London it wouldn't affect Birmingham? Which isn't even on the same watercourse.
When the much smaller Chernobyl blew up, they were picking up the pieces in Minsk.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
No, it's not a ridiculous argument at all. Actual invasions and sticking your flag up a pole are usually a sign of an opposing power challenging your authority in a space. If you're the overwhelmingly dominant power, the territory falls in to your sphere of influence, and you don't need to go to the trouble of invading and garrisoning it. That's really also the case with Ukraine - there was a strong challenge to Putin's authority there from the West. Do you really think Putin would have wanted to colonise Ukraine if his chosen President was still in power?
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
If you agree that his desired outcome is the annexation of Ukraine (regardless of the events that triggered this) then what is the point of trying to absolve him of having expansionist motivations? It's as if your worldview depends on seeing him as a purely rational chess player who has been forced into his actions by the west.
I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Putin's actions. I think his invasion of Ukraine has been a catastrophical action from any angle, Russian included. However, I would also argue that most of his actions are consistent with the frequently repated doctrine of Russia buffered from NATO by client states. By glibly dismissing our oponents as mad and dehumanising them, we push away the opportunity to reach any form of peace, which must surely be the paramount aim here.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
No, it's not a ridiculous argument at all. Actual invasions and sticking your flag up a pole are usually a sign of an opposing power challenging your authority in a space. If you're the overwhelmingly dominant power, the territory falls in to your sphere of influence, and you don't need to go to the trouble of invading and garrisoning it. That's really also the case with Ukraine - there was a strong challenge to Putin's authority there from the West. Do you really think Putin would have wanted to colonise Ukraine if his chosen President was still in power?
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
If you agree that his desired outcome is the annexation of Ukraine (regardless of the events that triggered this) then what is the point of trying to absolve him of having expansionist motivations? It's as if your worldview depends on seeing him as a purely rational chess player who has been forced into his actions by the west.
I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Putin's actions. I think his invasion of Ukraine has been a catastrophical action from any angle, Russian included. However, I would also argue that most of his actions are consistent with the frequently repated doctrine of Russia buffered from NATO by client states. By glibly dismissing our oponents as mad and dehumanising them, we push away the opportunity to reach any form of peace, which must surely be the paramount aim here.
And by the way, I am not absolving him of expansionism - the very action of demanding that the states around Russia are subservient to his authority is an expansionist act. I don't support that, but I don't propose using meagre British resources to try to stop it either.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
No, it's not a ridiculous argument at all. Actual invasions and sticking your flag up a pole are usually a sign of an opposing power challenging your authority in a space. If you're the overwhelmingly dominant power, the territory falls in to your sphere of influence, and you don't need to go to the trouble of invading and garrisoning it. That's really also the case with Ukraine - there was a strong challenge to Putin's authority there from the West. Do you really think Putin would have wanted to colonise Ukraine if his chosen President was still in power?
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
If you agree that his desired outcome is the annexation of Ukraine (regardless of the events that triggered this) then what is the point of trying to absolve him of having expansionist motivations? It's as if your worldview depends on seeing him as a purely rational chess player who has been forced into his actions by the west.
I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Putin's actions. I think his invasion of Ukraine has been a catastrophical action from any angle, Russian included. However, I would also argue that most of his actions are consistent with the frequently repated doctrine of Russia buffered from NATO by client states. By glibly dismissing our oponents as mad and dehumanising them, we push away the opportunity to reach any form of peace, which must surely be the paramount aim here.
The argument isn't foolish.
However it does somewhat fall down when you consider that we're talking about a man who sits at the wrong end of the world's longest table calling Jews Nazis and talking about liberating and absorbing foreign countries.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
A VAT rise will definitely stoke inflation, impossible for it not to.
Back in the 1960s there was an enhanced level of purchase tax on fripperies the government deemed unnecessary. It could be reintroduced through VAT, leaving the great unwashed ... err ... unwashed.
VAT itself used to have basic and luxury rates. Basic was 8 per cent until Mrs Thatcher's government, having denied its intention to double VAT, increased it to 15 per cent. Come to think of it, VAT might have been 10 per cent under Heath until Labour cut it to 8 per cent and introduced the luxury rate. There's an idea for Reevesand Starmer: slash VAT rates.
So they were truthful when they denied an intention to double it?
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
No, it's not a ridiculous argument at all. Actual invasions and sticking your flag up a pole are usually a sign of an opposing power challenging your authority in a space. If you're the overwhelmingly dominant power, the territory falls in to your sphere of influence, and you don't need to go to the trouble of invading and garrisoning it. That's really also the case with Ukraine - there was a strong challenge to Putin's authority there from the West. Do you really think Putin would have wanted to colonise Ukraine if his chosen President was still in power?
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
If you agree that his desired outcome is the annexation of Ukraine (regardless of the events that triggered this) then what is the point of trying to absolve him of having expansionist motivations? It's as if your worldview depends on seeing him as a purely rational chess player who has been forced into his actions by the west.
I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Putin's actions. I think his invasion of Ukraine has been a catastrophical action from any angle, Russian included. However, I would also argue that most of his actions are consistent with the frequently repated doctrine of Russia buffered from NATO by client states. By glibly dismissing our oponents as mad and dehumanising them, we push away the opportunity to reach any form of peace, which must surely be the paramount aim here.
You're glibly dismissing Ukraine as a place where "a strong challenge to Putin's authority" justifies invasion and annexation. It's not dehumanising anyone to support Ukraine in defending itself and its statehood.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
Not Kherson. It was founded by Catherine the Great and they have a tenuous hold on at the moment, so nuking it would be bizarre.
And that has stopped him when, exactly?
It was a reference to sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, by the way.
Zaporizhzhia is a different oblast.
Before making silly comments, please check a map. You will find the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is on the same river as Kherson and not far away.
Why not just admit that you named the wrong place?
I've no idea if he did, but given the size of Ukraine 3 hours or so is not that far away?
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
No, it's not a ridiculous argument at all. Actual invasions and sticking your flag up a pole are usually a sign of an opposing power challenging your authority in a space. If you're the overwhelmingly dominant power, the territory falls in to your sphere of influence, and you don't need to go to the trouble of invading and garrisoning it. That's really also the case with Ukraine - there was a strong challenge to Putin's authority there from the West. Do you really think Putin would have wanted to colonise Ukraine if his chosen President was still in power?
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
If you agree that his desired outcome is the annexation of Ukraine (regardless of the events that triggered this) then what is the point of trying to absolve him of having expansionist motivations? It's as if your worldview depends on seeing him as a purely rational chess player who has been forced into his actions by the west.
I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Putin's actions. I think his invasion of Ukraine has been a catastrophical action from any angle, Russian included. However, I would also argue that most of his actions are consistent with the frequently repated doctrine of Russia buffered from NATO by client states. By glibly dismissing our oponents as mad and dehumanising them, we push away the opportunity to reach any form of peace, which must surely be the paramount aim here.
Quite a few people tried that argument concerning Trump - that saying he was mad etc was dehumanising him.
Putin has worked very hard to achieve the position he has reached in many people's minds. It's seems rude to deny it to him.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
Not Kherson. It was founded by Catherine the Great and they have a tenuous hold on at the moment, so nuking it would be bizarre.
And that has stopped him when, exactly?
It was a reference to sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, by the way.
Zaporizhzhia is a different oblast.
Before making silly comments, please check a map. You will find the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is on the same river as Kherson and not far away.
Why not just admit that you named the wrong place?
I've no idea if he did, but given the size of Ukraine 3 hours or so is not that far away?
Given the power plant is on the river, uses it's water for cooling etc. any fun there will be in Kherson in a mater of hours. Never mind prevailing winds.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
I detected a theme there. Just an educated guess. Then 'Michael Fabricant' threw me off the scent. Did he used to work for the DfE or something, or did you just add him as a random arsehole?
He is a random arsehole, notably the random lying arsehole who falsely claimed teachers and nurses were having boozy parties at the same time as those drunken cretins in Whitehall were.
It's awfully tempting to stand against the bastard as an Independent at the next election just so I can heckle him at every meeting.
Ah yes, good call. I'd forgotten his claim that teachers and nurses were all on the lash at the height of Covid lockdowns. Plonker.
Go for it. Stand against him as a "Sober Ex-Teacher" independent.
He's an android anyway, with a name and a hairdo like that.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
His track record is so abysmal that I think we can be fairly sure that any decision to open up a front from Belarus will backfire as badly as everything else he has done.
Strategic Genius? Um, not really.
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
Talking of crazy plans, I did wonder if the idea might not be to try to take Kyiv again, but to go for Lviv and try to close off Western supplies through Poland.
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
The last 8 months are making me think that all the books I've read about Putin were a load of old tosh.
No, that they referred to earlier versions of Putin.
We all change as we age.
I think that the behaviour of a number of leaders around the world shows this - that some people become, frankly, addled.
That's a reasonable point to a degree. But I do think that the West has been collectively blind to how atrophied and nihilistic Russia has become. We have been projecting our views that inculcated during the Cold War onto contemporary Russia and its leadership, and perhaps the whole post-Soviet era, and it has lead us to form opinions about the nation that are clearly at odds with the facts.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
His track record is so abysmal that I think we can be fairly sure that any decision to open up a front from Belarus will backfire as badly as everything else he has done.
Strategic Genius? Um, not really.
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
Talking of crazy plans, I did wonder if the idea might not be to try to take Kyiv again, but to go for Lviv and try to close off Western supplies through Poland.
The Pripyat marshes make for very few routes that could be supplied from Western Belarus. They would be cut to pieces, if they don't mutiny and march on Mink first.
It's impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Liz Truss. She will go down in history as the worst British politician of all time. Political science conferences in future years will be devoted to the study of how anyone could be this disastrously bad at politics. Her premiership will likely be so short that book chapters will detail her failings on a minute by minute timeline. And she's not even bad at politics in the kind of hapless harmless way where one day the public will warm to her and people will pay money to hear her self-deprecating raconteurish accounts of the unfolding disaster. Can you imagine being in her shoes now?
It would be easier to feel sympathy for her if she had shown even the slightest compassion to those refugees she wanted to send on a one way ticket to Rwanda. It feels like Karma
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
His track record is so abysmal that I think we can be fairly sure that any decision to open up a front from Belarus will backfire as badly as everything else he has done.
Strategic Genius? Um, not really.
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
Talking of crazy plans, I did wonder if the idea might not be to try to take Kyiv again, mbut to go for Lviv and try to close off Western supplies through Poland.
The Pripyat marshes make for very few routes that could be supplied from Western Belarus. They would be cut to pieces, if they don't mutiny and march on Mink first.
May be if you ferret around you could find some more information about that for us? I wouldn’t grouse if you did
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
His track record is so abysmal that I think we can be fairly sure that any decision to open up a front from Belarus will backfire as badly as everything else he has done.
Strategic Genius? Um, not really.
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
Talking of crazy plans, I did wonder if the idea might not be to try to take Kyiv again, but to go for Lviv and try to close off Western supplies through Poland.
Someone else suggested that earlier, but what we know for now is that Russian and Belarusian forces are concentrating further east, around Gomel. I expect we'll know if they redeploy to SW Belarus.
Daniel Kawczynski MP giving an extensive, jaw-dropping interview on R5L right now. Simply everyone else's fault. The list of culprits for the shambles comprises basically everyone who isn't him, Boris or Truss.
I went to King's Cross today and all I got was this picture:
Very clean. It's a clean machine.
Bah. Over-rated LNER rubbish.
Not a patch on anything made at Derby. Or Crewe.
Grrrrr.
Weird how many of us have a disproportionate loyalty to our local 'Big 4' 1920s-1940s railway company - especially given for most of us it significantly predates our birth. Also, go LMS!
It's impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Liz Truss. She will go down in history as the worst British politician of all time. Political science conferences in future years will be devoted to the study of how anyone could be this disastrously bad at politics. Her premiership will likely be so short that book chapters will detail her failings on a minute by minute timeline. And she's not even bad at politics in the kind of hapless harmless way where one day the public will warm to her and people will pay money to hear her self-deprecating raconteurish accounts of the unfolding disaster. Can you imagine being in her shoes now?
It would be easier to feel sympathy for her if she had shown even the slightest compassion to those refugees she wanted to send on a one way ticket to Rwanda. It feels like Karma
Yes, she gave no fucks about them when she was airbrushing her Instagram feed en route to the top.
Send her back to Roundhay to ruminate on the meaning of public service.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
No, it's not a ridiculous argument at all. Actual invasions and sticking your flag up a pole are usually a sign of an opposing power challenging your authority in a space. If you're the overwhelmingly dominant power, the territory falls in to your sphere of influence, and you don't need to go to the trouble of invading and garrisoning it. That's really also the case with Ukraine - there was a strong challenge to Putin's authority there from the West. Do you really think Putin would have wanted to colonise Ukraine if his chosen President was still in power?
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
If you agree that his desired outcome is the annexation of Ukraine (regardless of the events that triggered this) then what is the point of trying to absolve him of having expansionist motivations? It's as if your worldview depends on seeing him as a purely rational chess player who has been forced into his actions by the west.
I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Putin's actions. I think his invasion of Ukraine has been a catastrophical action from any angle, Russian included. However, I would also argue that most of his actions are consistent with the frequently repated doctrine of Russia buffered from NATO by client states. By glibly dismissing our oponents as mad and dehumanising them, we push away the opportunity to reach any form of peace, which must surely be the paramount aim here.
You're glibly dismissing Ukraine as a place where "a strong challenge to Putin's authority" justifies invasion and annexation. It's not dehumanising anyone to support Ukraine in defending itself and its statehood.
Not at all; I have never justified it. I have just tried to understand the motivation for it on a slightly more complex level than the 'Putin is a psycopath' that seems to be the general standard of analysis here.
It's impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Liz Truss. She will go down in history as the worst British politician of all time. Political science conferences in future years will be devoted to the study of how anyone could be this disastrously bad at politics. Her premiership will likely be so short that book chapters will detail her failings on a minute by minute timeline. And she's not even bad at politics in the kind of hapless harmless way where one day the public will warm to her and people will pay money to hear her self-deprecating raconteurish accounts of the unfolding disaster. Can you imagine being in her shoes now?
It would be easier to feel sympathy for her if she had shown even the slightest compassion to those refugees she wanted to send on a one way ticket to Rwanda. It feels like Karma
As Denmark and the EU itself are following similar policies are you going to condemn UVDL and the Danes as well
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
The last 8 months are making me think that all the books I've read about Putin were a load of old tosh.
No, that they referred to earlier versions of Putin.
We all change as we age.
I think that the behaviour of a number of leaders around the world shows this - that some people become, frankly, addled.
Yes they do, and that is a factor. However, people also act rationally and even morally according to their own reality. And our realities are totally different. We should attempt to understand the realities of others, not to reach out to them in some sort of Mary Poppins way, but to understand the way they may act in the future. It's just sensible to do so. To suggest that our own reality is the only one, and that others whose actions are starkly opposed are suffering from an illness is simply stupid.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
His track record is so abysmal that I think we can be fairly sure that any decision to open up a front from Belarus will backfire as badly as everything else he has done.
Strategic Genius? Um, not really.
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
Talking of crazy plans, I did wonder if the idea might not be to try to take Kyiv again, mbut to go for Lviv and try to close off Western supplies through Poland.
The Pripyat marshes make for very few routes that could be supplied from Western Belarus. They would be cut to pieces, if they don't mutiny and march on Mink first.
May be if you ferret around you could find some more information about that for us? I wouldn’t grouse if you did
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
No, it's not a ridiculous argument at all. Actual invasions and sticking your flag up a pole are usually a sign of an opposing power challenging your authority in a space. If you're the overwhelmingly dominant power, the territory falls in to your sphere of influence, and you don't need to go to the trouble of invading and garrisoning it. That's really also the case with Ukraine - there was a strong challenge to Putin's authority there from the West. Do you really think Putin would have wanted to colonise Ukraine if his chosen President was still in power?
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
If you agree that his desired outcome is the annexation of Ukraine (regardless of the events that triggered this) then what is the point of trying to absolve him of having expansionist motivations? It's as if your worldview depends on seeing him as a purely rational chess player who has been forced into his actions by the west.
I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Putin's actions. I think his invasion of Ukraine has been a catastrophical action from any angle, Russian included. However, I would also argue that most of his actions are consistent with the frequently repated doctrine of Russia buffered from NATO by client states. By glibly dismissing our oponents as mad and dehumanising them, we push away the opportunity to reach any form of peace, which must surely be the paramount aim here.
You're glibly dismissing Ukraine as a place where "a strong challenge to Putin's authority" justifies invasion and annexation. It's not dehumanising anyone to support Ukraine in defending itself and its statehood.
Not at all; I have never justified it. I have just tried to understand the motivation for it on a slightly more complex level than the 'Putin is a psycopath' that seems to be the general standard of analysis here.
The motivations expressed do not seem to be very complex to me. When assessed they are often inconsistent or contradictory (I don't want to be encircled by NATO, therefore let's make a larger border with NATO, to pick just one), irrational or ahistorical, or bog standard 'my strength is my country's strength' dictator reasoning.
Whether Putin is a psycopath seems to be irrelevant when trying to figure out the motivation for all this, when the pretexts have been so numerous and changable (Ukraine is not a real country, no this is about nazis, no it is self defence, no it is about NATO again).
Things are usually a lot more complex than people think. But sometimes they are relatively simple (with emphasis on relatively). Dismissing the more outlandish pretexts does not itself mean no attempt is made at analysis.
The psychopath question is more relevant in trying to figure out what Putin might do in response to set backs.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
No, it's not a ridiculous argument at all. Actual invasions and sticking your flag up a pole are usually a sign of an opposing power challenging your authority in a space. If you're the overwhelmingly dominant power, the territory falls in to your sphere of influence, and you don't need to go to the trouble of invading and garrisoning it. That's really also the case with Ukraine - there was a strong challenge to Putin's authority there from the West. Do you really think Putin would have wanted to colonise Ukraine if his chosen President was still in power?
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
If you agree that his desired outcome is the annexation of Ukraine (regardless of the events that triggered this) then what is the point of trying to absolve him of having expansionist motivations? It's as if your worldview depends on seeing him as a purely rational chess player who has been forced into his actions by the west.
I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Putin's actions. I think his invasion of Ukraine has been a catastrophical action from any angle, Russian included. However, I would also argue that most of his actions are consistent with the frequently repated doctrine of Russia buffered from NATO by client states. By glibly dismissing our oponents as mad and dehumanising them, we push away the opportunity to reach any form of peace, which must surely be the paramount aim here.
You're glibly dismissing Ukraine as a place where "a strong challenge to Putin's authority" justifies invasion and annexation. It's not dehumanising anyone to support Ukraine in defending itself and its statehood.
Not at all; I have never justified it. I have just tried to understand the motivation for it on a slightly more complex level than the 'Putin is a psycopath' that seems to be the general standard of analysis here.
Have you ever known a psychopath - or at least someone at that end of the psychopathic scale - on a personal and/or professional level?
I have. And must say, Valdimir Putin ticks the right (or rather wrong) boxes for me on that scorecard,
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
Well, China would be - shall we say - completely opposed to the use of nuclear weapons by Putin. Because once the taboo has been lifted (and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty effectively binned), it becomes inevitable that Taiwan, South Korea and Japan would all become nuclear states - in very short order.
Deceased royal Lord Mountbatten set to be named in court as alleged child abuser - Accusations of sex crimes at Belfast boys’ home to be made in court against the late Queen’s second cousin
It's frankly amazing how quickly Boris has departed from the consciousness. A year ago he sat in the centre of politics like a corpulent, horny roadblock. No one is mentioning him now to come and sort things out.
To a large extent he is the architect of this mess. Truss & Co just added a bit of decoration to the disaster.
Truss would never have been in the position to be PM if Johnson hadn't been too feart to promote anyone who might outshine him
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
The executive of the 1922 Committee will meet on Wednesday, as usual, with members expected to discuss the precariousness of the prime minister’s position. However, officers of the committee are expected to meet today. Sources close to Brady have suggested he would feel compelled to tell Truss to stand down or face defeat in a vote.
The group’s treasurer, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, told the BBC that the rules that keep Truss safe in office for a year could be ditched if enough Tory MPs support it. “Of course we have the power to change the rules,” he said.
However, he added that such a move would require the backing of a substantial number of Tory MPs. “We will only change the rules if it is very clear that a large majority, by which I mean probably 60% to 70%, of the party want the rules to be changed.”
I went to King's Cross today and all I got was this picture:
Very clean. It's a clean machine.
Bah. Over-rated LNER rubbish.
Not a patch on anything made at Derby. Or Crewe.
Grrrrr.
Weird how many of us have a disproportionate loyalty to our local 'Big 4' 1920s-1940s railway company - especially given for most of us it significantly predates our birth. Also, go LMS!
Lol, true. 'Tis weird, especially since I'm foreign to these parts.
Mrs Flatlander has loads of pictures from inside the old Doncaster Plantworks taken about 20 years ago. It was in a pretty sad state by then but many of the old features were still there.
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
The last 8 months are making me think that all the books I've read about Putin were a load of old tosh.
No, that they referred to earlier versions of Putin.
We all change as we age.
I think that the behaviour of a number of leaders around the world shows this - that some people become, frankly, addled.
That's a reasonable point to a degree. But I do think that the West has been collectively blind to how atrophied and nihilistic Russia has become. We have been projecting our views that inculcated during the Cold War onto contemporary Russia and its leadership, and perhaps the whole post-Soviet era, and it has lead us to form opinions about the nation that are clearly at odds with the facts.
Another factor might be that Western leaders and business people see only Moscow, and tourists only Moscow and St Petersburg, both modern, cosmopolitan, global cities. They do not see the myriad small towns who support Putin, even if they think he's gone a bit soft compared with the hardline Russian nationalists, where supermarkets are rarely full, and hospitals sparsely equipped. Most of Russia, whose towns are, in our terms, left behind, red wall, and Brexity.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
Do you think he's hired, new smarter people to post on Internet message boards?
Sunak held drinks at the 5* Londoner Hotel to thank his Treasury team on Wed… beer, wine, nibbles… and guests included… Sir Tom Scholar, Treasury chief mandarin sacked in the Truss-Kwasi takeover.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
I don’t know; it sounds like a plausible outcome from the war.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
His track record is so abysmal that I think we can be fairly sure that any decision to open up a front from Belarus will backfire as badly as everything else he has done.
Strategic Genius? Um, not really.
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
Talking of crazy plans, I did wonder if the idea might not be to try to take Kyiv again, mbut to go for Lviv and try to close off Western supplies through Poland.
The Pripyat marshes make for very few routes that could be supplied from Western Belarus. They would be cut to pieces, if they don't mutiny and march on Mink first.
May be if you ferret around you could find some more information about that for us? I wouldn’t grouse if you did
Oi, don't stoat on me for my bloody autocorrect.
It's a pain when one is badgered by some fisher for data.
I went to King's Cross today and all I got was this picture:
Very clean. It's a clean machine.
Bah. Over-rated LNER rubbish.
Not a patch on anything made at Derby. Or Crewe.
Grrrrr.
Weird how many of us have a disproportionate loyalty to our local 'Big 4' 1920s-1940s railway company - especially given for most of us it significantly predates our birth. Also, go LMS!
Lol, true. 'Tis weird, especially since I'm foreign to these parts.
Mrs Flatlander has loads of pictures from inside the old Doncaster Plantworks taken about 20 years ago. It was in a pretty sad state by then but many of the old features were still there.
LMS had the best lines, I have to admit.
The LMS did go a fair bit of the way to standardisation - but that might be in hindsight, coloured by the fact that they dominated BR.
Another factor might be that Western leaders and business people see only Moscow, and tourists only Moscow and St Petersburg, both modern, cosmopolitan, global cities. They do not see the myriad small towns who support Putin, even if they think he's gone a bit soft compared with the hardline Russian nationalists, where supermarkets are rarely full, and hospitals sparsely equipped. Most of Russia, whose towns are, in our terms, left behind, red wall, and Brexity.
I think that's true as well.
You see it in the media all the time that a correspondent reports from a nearby city, not the place in the story. This is true even for prestigious publications in relatively small and prosperous countries. How good is Western reporting of Russia really? And China's the same problem times 10, because the language and cultural barriers plus the sheer number of places and people make it even hard to report on.
Of course the whole point of having intelligence agencies is to actually figure out what's really going on, and yet their assessments still seem to be off the mark, even if they can detect the intent of the Russian government.
Assuming we get through this, there really needs to be a thorough assessment of what we did and didn't get wrong in assessing the readiness, willingness, and ability of the Russian state to wage war on Ukraine. Because if we are getting it wrong with Russia you can be sure we are making similar mistakes with other countries.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
Wallace isn't optimal because even if he plays a "Chairman" role the bottom line is he would still be front and centre in a GE campaign and he simply will not win as many votes as Penny or Sunak would.
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
Wallace has never given any indication he has any desire to be PM though?
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
Which leaves us with Penny. She should become PM, Hunt stays as Chancellor and Sunak can be Deputy PM if that's grandiose enough for him?
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
I don’t know; it sounds like a plausible outcome from the war.
Doing the Cold War, various Tankies would tell people that, of course Russia *had* to have control of Eastern Europe, after their terrible suffering in WWII.
I always though - "Fuck me, that's one hell of a comfort blanket".
Deceased royal Lord Mountbatten set to be named in court as alleged child abuser - Accusations of sex crimes at Belfast boys’ home to be made in court against the late Queen’s second cousin
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
Wallace has never given any indication he has any desire to be PM though?
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
Which leaves us with Penny. She should become PM, Hunt stays as Chancellor and Sunak can be Deputy PM if that's grandiose enough for him?
Big danger though with Mordaunt. If she fails she will become the 3rd consecutive female pm to be a failure in office...not a good look for feminism
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
I don’t know; it sounds like a plausible outcome from the war.
Doing the Cold War, various Tankies would tell people that, of course Russia *had* to have control of Eastern Europe, after their terrible suffering in WWII.
I always though - "Fuck me, that's one hell of a comfort blanket".
A view that seems to have been shared by much of the German establishment.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
Wallace has never given any indication he has any desire to be PM though?
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
Which leaves us with Penny. She should become PM, Hunt stays as Chancellor and Sunak can be Deputy PM if that's grandiose enough for him?
While she's a vastly better public speaker than failed Cosplay Thatcher, Mordaunt is incompetent and dishonest. Not sure she'd be a magic bullet to the Tories problems.
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
Wallace has never given any indication he has any desire to be PM though?
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
Which leaves us with Penny. She should become PM, Hunt stays as Chancellor and Sunak can be Deputy PM if that's grandiose enough for him?
Big danger though with Mordaunt. If she fails she will become the 3rd consecutive female pm to be a failure in office...not a good look for feminism
yep, masculinity has never survived it's string of inept leaders.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
I find Russia position incoherent other than just being special pleading. Russia believes might is right and then complains it isn't fair how the west tries to dictate everything. Russia decries the rules based international order as a western coup, ignoring the fact that it enshrines Russia's territory as being nearly twice the size of any other sovereign state with more resources than anyone else which can't be challenged. Russia believes in spheres of influence politics, so why not advise them there are three major economic power blocs in the world, the US, Europe and China, so how about we split Russia in two? The western part could be in the European sphere of influence and Siberia in the Chinese sphere of influence. Russia feels surrounded by Nato so has no option but to defend itself - by committing its entire armed forces to a conflict with a non-Nato member and leaving theselves hopeless exposed to an attack on Moscow and St Petersburg from the dreaded Nato.
Diplomats were careful in the 90s not to humiliate Russia. I wonder if we went too far and indulged their fantasies to global superpower status even if they lack the money, technology or ideas to make it a reality. It might be worth reminding them that the collapse of the Soviet Union had little to do with the west - the US President himself opposed it(!) and was all about Russia's own incompetence and cruelty.
Another factor might be that Western leaders and business people see only Moscow, and tourists only Moscow and St Petersburg, both modern, cosmopolitan, global cities. They do not see the myriad small towns who support Putin, even if they think he's gone a bit soft compared with the hardline Russian nationalists, where supermarkets are rarely full, and hospitals sparsely equipped. Most of Russia, whose towns are, in our terms, left behind, red wall, and Brexity.
I think that's true as well.
You see it in the media all the time that a correspondent reports from a nearby city, not the place in the story. This is true even for prestigious publications in relatively small and prosperous countries. How good is Western reporting of Russia really? And China's the same problem times 10, because the language and cultural barriers plus the sheer number of places and people make it even hard to report on.
Of course the whole point of having intelligence agencies is to actually figure out what's really going on, and yet their assessments still seem to be off the mark, even if they can detect the intent of the Russian government.
Assuming we get through this, there really needs to be a thorough assessment of what we did and didn't get wrong in assessing the readiness, willingness, and ability of the Russian state to wage war on Ukraine. Because if we are getting it wrong with Russia you can be sure we are making similar mistakes with other countries.
The problem seems to have been the layered corruption in Russia - which is much the same that it was in the USSR.
Each layer in the system takes the information from below, embellishes it to make it seem better and passes it on.
So the CIA used to steal the stuff being shown to the Politburo which was -
Truth x 1st improvernemnt x 2nd improvement .... 27th improvement = horse manure.
A chap I used to work with went around part of the old Soviet Union, after the fall. He traced, in the oil industry, the way that the bullshit multiplied up the tree. By the time it got to the regional government it was absurd. By the time it got to Moscow.....
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
Do you think he's hired, new smarter people to post on Internet message boards?
I doubt it. Not much of a return in that. I meant heavier kinds of cyberwar.
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
Wallace has never given any indication he has any desire to be PM though?
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
Which leaves us with Penny. She should become PM, Hunt stays as Chancellor and Sunak can be Deputy PM if that's grandiose enough for him?
Big danger though with Mordaunt. If she fails she will become the 3rd consecutive female pm to be a failure in office...not a good look for feminism
What, it will fuel the suspicion that when all is said and done the memsahibs aren't really up to it? jerk.
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
Wallace has never given any indication he has any desire to be PM though?
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
Which leaves us with Penny. She should become PM, Hunt stays as Chancellor and Sunak can be Deputy PM if that's grandiose enough for him?
Big danger though with Mordaunt. If she fails she will become the 3rd consecutive female pm to be a failure in office...not a good look for feminism
Comments
Instant internet sensation...
It's all boiling frog theory stuff. Things escalate so slowly, it's hard to see the bigger picture. Six months ago, did anyone foresee the Nordstream 2 pipeline being blown up, Iran sending missiles to Russia, or talk of Ukrainian missiles taking out every last government building in Belarus inside the hour?
Things continue to escalate. We remain on the Threads timeline.
But anyway why are we, again, talking about nuclear escalation? Nothing has happened to suggest that is where we are headed.
On this day he invited me into the signal box to which I was absolutely awe struck, and amid the clanging of various bells he asked me to pull a lever, which was quite heavy, then another one, and he said you have just signalled through the Flying Scotsman as per photo and as it passed under me in full steam I was on top of the world
The Flying Scotsman, Mallard, Union of South Africa and others, as I said the other day, passed our classroom regularly in full steam and I have been in love with steam trains ever since
Are you suggesting that if a nuclear power station blew in London it wouldn't affect Birmingham? Which isn't even on the same watercourse.
When the much smaller Chernobyl blew up, they were picking up the pieces in Minsk.
However it does somewhat fall down when you consider that we're talking about a man who sits at the wrong end of the world's longest table calling Jews Nazis and talking about liberating and absorbing foreign countries.
This is not, I would suggest, a sign of sanity.
And with that, good night.
We all change as we age.
I think that the behaviour of a number of leaders around the world shows this - that some people become, frankly, addled.
Westminster VI
SNP 42 (-3 on 5-7 Oct)
Lab 30 (nc)
Con 16 (+1)
LDm 6 (+1)
Grn 2 (*)
Alba 2 (*)
Holyrood Constituency VI
SNP 45 (-2 on 17-19 Aug)
Lab 28 (+6)
Con 15 (-2)
LDm 6 (-3)
Grn 3 (nc)
Alba 3 (*)
Holyrood List VI
SNP 37 (-4 on 17-19 Aug)
Lab 26 (+4)
Con 17 (-2)
Grn 9 (+1)
LDm 7 (nc)
Alba 4 (*)
The Westminster vote shares imply a swing of 7.2% to Labour from SNP since 2019 and would suggest 10 Labour gains with 1 seat neck and neck.
Putin has worked very hard to achieve the position he has reached in many people's minds. It's seems rude to deny it to him.
He's Gone Full Tonto.
That would suggest substantial SLAB gains in Scotland it seems.
Simply everyone else's fault. The list of culprits for the shambles comprises basically everyone who isn't him, Boris or Truss.
Also, go LMS!
Send her back to Roundhay to ruminate on the meaning of public service.
I see Truss has lost the weirdo wing of the party. Admittedly there's a good few more there
Whether Putin is a psycopath seems to be irrelevant when trying to figure out the motivation for all this, when the pretexts have been so numerous and changable (Ukraine is not a real country, no this is about nazis, no it is self defence, no it is about NATO again).
Things are usually a lot more complex than people think. But sometimes they are relatively simple (with emphasis on relatively). Dismissing the more outlandish pretexts does not itself mean no attempt is made at analysis.
The psychopath question is more relevant in trying to figure out what Putin might do in response to set backs.
With a shrinking sensible wing.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/16/liz-truss-jeremy-hunt-new-chancellor-income-tax/
I have. And must say, Valdimir Putin ticks the right (or rather wrong) boxes for me on that scorecard,
- Accusations of sex crimes at Belfast boys’ home to be made in court against the late Queen’s second cousin
https://independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/deceased-royal-lord-mountbatten-set-to-be-named-in-court-as-alleged-child-abuser-42070448.html
The loss of JRM, Dorries, Braverman, and the entire ERG would be excellent
- The best result for Labour since 2001.
- The worse result EVER for the Conservatives.
- The best result for the Lib Dems since 2010.
- The worst result for the SNP since 2017. https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1581746060145627139
Sounds ridiculous, right?
The group’s treasurer, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, told the BBC that the rules that keep Truss safe in office for a year could be ditched if enough Tory MPs support it. “Of course we have the power to change the rules,” he said.
However, he added that such a move would require the backing of a substantial number of Tory MPs. “We will only change the rules if it is very clear that a large majority, by which I mean probably 60% to 70%, of the party want the rules to be changed.”
Mrs Flatlander has loads of pictures from inside the old Doncaster Plantworks taken about 20 years ago. It was in a pretty sad state by then but many of the old features were still there.
LMS had the best lines, I have to admit.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
Sunak singled him out for praise.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1581748429427920896
Stop giggling at the back
Vote labour to save the union!
You see it in the media all the time that a correspondent reports from a nearby city, not the place in the story. This is true even for prestigious publications in relatively small and prosperous countries. How good is Western reporting of Russia really? And China's the same problem times 10, because the language and cultural barriers plus the sheer number of places and people make it even hard to report on.
Of course the whole point of having intelligence agencies is to actually figure out what's really going on, and yet their assessments still seem to be off the mark, even if they can detect the intent of the Russian government.
Assuming we get through this, there really needs to be a thorough assessment of what we did and didn't get wrong in assessing the readiness, willingness, and ability of the Russian state to wage war on Ukraine. Because if we are getting it wrong with Russia you can be sure we are making similar mistakes with other countries.
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
Which leaves us with Penny. She should become PM, Hunt stays as Chancellor and Sunak can be Deputy PM if that's grandiose enough for him?
I always though - "Fuck me, that's one hell of a comfort blanket".
He could still be a campaign asset for the Conservatives at the next election.
bleating ninny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzmgJ_ZOqrE
Diplomats were careful in the 90s not to humiliate Russia. I wonder if we went too far and indulged their fantasies to global superpower status even if they lack the money, technology or ideas to make it a reality. It might be worth reminding them that the collapse of the Soviet Union had little to do with the west - the US President himself opposed it(!) and was all about Russia's own incompetence and cruelty.
Each layer in the system takes the information from below, embellishes it to make it seem better and passes it on.
So the CIA used to steal the stuff being shown to the Politburo which was -
Truth x 1st improvernemnt x 2nd improvement .... 27th improvement = horse manure.
A chap I used to work with went around part of the old Soviet Union, after the fall. He traced, in the oil industry, the way that the bullshit multiplied up the tree. By the time it got to the regional government it was absurd. By the time it got to Moscow.....
What rhymes with ihunt?