Translation: Bugger off then, just because I did not give you a job
Rishi Sunak: Sad to see my good friend @sajidjavid stepping back from politics.
He’s been a proud champion of enterprise and opportunity during his time in Government and on the backbenches - particularly for the people of Bromsgrove.
Odd one. You would have expected him to be a senior figure in team Sunak. Perhaps he wasn't offered a big enough role?
Or possibly, he has lost interest in democratic politics.
Can't blame him. Must be incredibly disturbing to be in the same party as Truss, Kwarteng and Braverman and realise the membership like them more than you.
Or probably having failed to become PM but already having been Chancellor and Home Secretary he has decided to go back to the City and make more money rather than stay on £80k a year as a backbench opposition MP.
AP (via Seattle Times) Dems move to make South Carolina, not Iowa, 1st voting state
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats voted Friday to remove Iowa as the leadoff state on the presidential nominating calendar and replace it with South Carolina starting in 2024, a dramatic shakeup championed by President Joe Biden to better reflect the party’s deeply diverse electorate.
The Democratic National Committee’s rule-making arm made the move to strip Iowa from the position it has held for more than four decades after technical meltdowns sparked chaos and marred results of the state’s 2020 caucus. The change also comes after a long push by some of the party’s top leaders to start choosing a president in states that are less white, especially given the importance of Black voters as Democrats’ most loyal electoral base. . . .
Following Biden’s recommendations, the committee also opted to have New Hampshire and Nevada jointly vote second, a week after South Carolina, followed by Georgia and Michigan, two critical battleground states that would round out the top five in subsequent weeks. All the proposed contests would likely be held in February 2024. . . .
The move will still have to be approved by the full DNC in a vote likely early next year, but it will almost certainly follow the rule-making committee’s lead.
The revamped schedule could largely be moot for 2024 if Biden opts to seek a second term, but may remake Democratic presidential cycles in 2028 and beyond. . . .
Biden wrote in a letter to rules committee members on Thursday that the party should scrap “restrictive” caucuses altogether because their rules on in-person participation can sometimes exclude working-class and other voters. He told also told party leaders privately that he’d like to see South Carolina go first to better ensure that voters of color aren’t marginalized as Democrats choose a presidential nominee.
Four of the five states now poised to start the party’s primary are presidential battlegrounds . . .
The first five voting states would be positioned to cast ballots before Super Tuesday, the day when much of the rest of the country holds primaries. . . .
The Republican National Committee has already decided to keep Iowa’s caucus as the first contest in its 2024 presidential primary, ensuring that GOP White House hopefuls — which include Trump — have continued to frequently campaign there. . . .
Still, the vote by the rules committee has faced serious pushback, with some states vowing to ignore the changes altogether. That’s despite the panel approving language saying states could lose all of their delegates to the party’s national convention if they attempt to violate new rules.
Iowa and New Hampshire have said laws in their states mandate them going before others, and they intend to abide by those, not DNC decrees.
Nevada, with its heavily Hispanic population, has balked at sharing the second-place slot with New Hampshire, a state 2,500 miles away. . . .
Seems like a mess. I recall a very funny John Oliver piece about the primaries in 2016. I like that as worded it seems like it is saying Nevada is balking at sharing second place because it is heavily hispanic.
Of course, South Carolina went to Biden last time, the first of the early states to go his way.
Looking at last time, its fun to see how long Tulsi Gabbard stayed in. Technically.
South Carolina saved Biden.
Can't think why he has plugged them to be first next time.
Trust someone named rottenborough to smell an electoral fix, for shame.
AP (via Seattle Times) Dems move to make South Carolina, not Iowa, 1st voting state
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats voted Friday to remove Iowa as the leadoff state on the presidential nominating calendar and replace it with South Carolina starting in 2024, a dramatic shakeup championed by President Joe Biden to better reflect the party’s deeply diverse electorate.
The Democratic National Committee’s rule-making arm made the move to strip Iowa from the position it has held for more than four decades after technical meltdowns sparked chaos and marred results of the state’s 2020 caucus. The change also comes after a long push by some of the party’s top leaders to start choosing a president in states that are less white, especially given the importance of Black voters as Democrats’ most loyal electoral base. . . .
Following Biden’s recommendations, the committee also opted to have New Hampshire and Nevada jointly vote second, a week after South Carolina, followed by Georgia and Michigan, two critical battleground states that would round out the top five in subsequent weeks. All the proposed contests would likely be held in February 2024. . . .
The move will still have to be approved by the full DNC in a vote likely early next year, but it will almost certainly follow the rule-making committee’s lead.
The revamped schedule could largely be moot for 2024 if Biden opts to seek a second term, but may remake Democratic presidential cycles in 2028 and beyond. . . .
Biden wrote in a letter to rules committee members on Thursday that the party should scrap “restrictive” caucuses altogether because their rules on in-person participation can sometimes exclude working-class and other voters. He told also told party leaders privately that he’d like to see South Carolina go first to better ensure that voters of color aren’t marginalized as Democrats choose a presidential nominee.
Four of the five states now poised to start the party’s primary are presidential battlegrounds . . .
The first five voting states would be positioned to cast ballots before Super Tuesday, the day when much of the rest of the country holds primaries. . . .
The Republican National Committee has already decided to keep Iowa’s caucus as the first contest in its 2024 presidential primary, ensuring that GOP White House hopefuls — which include Trump — have continued to frequently campaign there. . . .
Still, the vote by the rules committee has faced serious pushback, with some states vowing to ignore the changes altogether. That’s despite the panel approving language saying states could lose all of their delegates to the party’s national convention if they attempt to violate new rules.
Iowa and New Hampshire have said laws in their states mandate them going before others, and they intend to abide by those, not DNC decrees.
Nevada, with its heavily Hispanic population, has balked at sharing the second-place slot with New Hampshire, a state 2,500 miles away. . . .
Seems like a mess. I recall a very funny John Oliver piece about the primaries in 2016. I like that as worded it seems like it is saying Nevada is balking at sharing second place because it is heavily hispanic.
Of course, South Carolina went to Biden last time, the first of the early states to go his way.
Looking at last time, its fun to see how long Tulsi Gabbard stayed in. Technically.
South Carolina saved Biden.
Can't think why he has plugged them to be first next time.
Trust someone named rottenborough to smell an electoral fix, for shame.
"Enacting these new dates could prove to be a steep challenge. Primary dates are set at the state level and each state has a different process."
Putin was quoted this week as saying he’ll talk to the US … if they recognise his annexations. Quite absurd to trust any ceasefire promises from Putin. At best, he can only be deterred.
Some of his legal issues I don't even get why he'd open the door to investigation - for example, on the Mar a Lago stuff, why did he want a bunch of seemingly random confidential documents if he was planning to just store them in haphazard fashion in his office apparently to no purpose, and even if he did want it and believed they were his for some reason, why mess the archive people about when they sought access?
A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls. The imperative of seeking to avert a future war in Ukraine thus requires continuing to help Ukraine fight to make necessary military gains and secure necessary reconstruction assistance rather than seeking to freeze war prematurely.
Translation: Bugger off then, just because I did not give you a job
Rishi Sunak: Sad to see my good friend @sajidjavid stepping back from politics.
He’s been a proud champion of enterprise and opportunity during his time in Government and on the backbenches - particularly for the people of Bromsgrove.
Odd one. You would have expected him to be a senior figure in team Sunak. Perhaps he wasn't offered a big enough role?
Or possibly, he has lost interest in democratic politics.
Can't blame him. Must be incredibly disturbing to be in the same party as Truss, Kwarteng and Braverman and realise the membership like them more than you.
Or probably having failed to become PM but already having been Chancellor and Home Secretary he has decided to go back to the City and make more money rather than stay on £80k a year as a backbench opposition MP.
England are the biggest unbeaten team remaining. Well well
Unfortunately means almost nothing.
Senegal in round 2, France in the quarter finals, Spain in the semis, Brazil in the final. Win those four (especially the last three) and we will be undeniably the best in the world.
Yes, but as @Driver rightly points out, the alternative route really isn't obviously easier. We'd likely have to beat Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil before beating probably France or Spain?
Winning World Cups is fecking hard, and is only getting harder as so many teams improve. This, no doubt, is why so few nations have ever won a World Cup, despite it being a global game
Football is one of England's many wonderful gifts to the world. Unfortunately it is REALLY popular
Needs a lot of luck too.
I'd say there are probably nine teams in the world that England aren't definitely favourites against, all else (form/injuries/suspension) being equal. One of them didn't even qualify, two didn't make it out of the group stage. That still leaves six teams (*) and you're going to have to beat at least three of them.
(*) Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil, France, Spain, Portugal. And maybe, based on history, Croatia.
And we are plotting the most obvious opponents to the final, when in reality a couple of shocks (including against us) and the draw opens up a bit, cf our potential opponents vs our actual opponents last time out. So, we get:
16s: Senegal QF: France or Poland SF: Spain, Portugal, Switzerland or Morocco F: Netherlands, USA, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Croatia, Brazil or South Korea
Yes, some are more likely and others pretty improbable especially with those Final opponents, but don't rule out some non-obvious match ups along the way.
Shockwise, I fancy the USA to get through, against a somewhat lacklustre Holland
And Japan to beat Croatia (is that a shock?)
I can't bear to think about England Senegal
England will beat Senegal. The next game could be tough. I think England will go all the way though. You heard it here first!
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
The only thing that has been proven to deter Russia long-term is NATO membership. That's why Putin invaded Ukraine but not the Baltic states. That has to be the end result of Putin's aggression. How we get there is the question.
Putin was quoted this week as saying he’ll talk to the US … if they recognise his annexations. Quite absurd to trust any ceasefire promises from Putin. At best, he can only be deterred.
The point has been made before that this is the standard approach Russia makes for negotiations: ask for everything *you* want, and don't budge an inch from it. Not really negotiations as we know them...
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
The only thing that has been proven to deter Russia long-term is NATO membership. That's why Putin invaded Ukraine but not the Baltic states. That has to be the end result of Putin's aggression. How we get there is the question.
That would be a more stable situation but NATO canididate countries must have no unresolved territorial disputes so a change in the NATO rules would probably be necessary.
It would also need very strong US leadership to bribe and/or threaten the usual suspects who be inclined to veto Ukrainian membership. Biden is a very doctrinaire PNAC hegemonist so he might be sympathetic to doing it, if they can get him out of the bath.
This weekend Sunak will pay his first visit to Chequers with his family as prime minister before returning to No 10 to watch the England World Cup game. Downing Street hopes that football will provide the nation with a welcome tonic ahead of a hugely challenging period.
This weekend Sunak will pay his first visit to Chequers with his family as prime minister before returning to No 10 to watch the England World Cup game. Downing Street hopes that football will provide the nation with a welcome tonic ahead of a hugely challenging period.
A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls. The imperative of seeking to avert a future war in Ukraine thus requires continuing to help Ukraine fight to make necessary military gains and secure necessary reconstruction assistance rather than seeking to freeze war prematurely.
That’s the absolute key point.
An uneasy peace now creates the conditions for war in the future and Ukraine’s position will almost certainly be less strong
This weekend Sunak will pay his first visit to Chequers with his family as prime minister before returning to No 10 to watch the England World Cup game. Downing Street hopes that football will provide the nation with a welcome tonic ahead of a hugely challenging period.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
U.S. Chamber of Commerce warns against draft EU plan to exclude non-EU cloud vendors
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 12 other groups on Thursday warned the European Union against adopting rules that could exclude Amazon, Google, Microsoft and other non-EU cloud services providers from the European market. ... At issue is a draft proposal from ENISA for an EU certification scheme vouching for the cybersecurity of cloud services that would determine how governments and companies in the bloc select a vendor for their business. ... "The CSP's registered head office and global headquarters shall be established in a member state of the EU," the document said.
This weekend Sunak will pay his first visit to Chequers with his family as prime minister before returning to No 10 to watch the England World Cup game. Downing Street hopes that football will provide the nation with a welcome tonic ahead of a hugely challenging period.
France and Germany are not used to Finland saying…anything. Now that neutrality is formally over, Europe is having to deal w a bold, direct, unapologetic truth-sayer.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
Musk teases about a massive story regarding Twitter and Hunter Biden. And then we get a few tweets and some internal emails that show us that... Twitter had lots of internal arguments.
I thought we were going to see some evidence of government compulsion. But, sadly, nothing so exciting.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
They will try to right for a while but make no progress. Any foothold Russia has in Ukraine is even less stable than the pre-2014 boundaries though.
Musk teases about a massive story regarding Twitter and Hunter Biden. And then we get a few tweets and some internal emails that show us that... Twitter had lots of internal arguments.
I thought we were going to see some evidence of government compulsion. But, sadly, nothing so exciting.
Musk's gone woke and suspended Kanye from Twitter.
Musk teases about a massive story regarding Twitter and Hunter Biden. And then we get a few tweets and some internal emails that show us that... Twitter had lots of internal arguments.
I thought we were going to see some evidence of government compulsion. But, sadly, nothing so exciting.
France and Germany are not used to Finland saying…anything. Now that neutrality is formally over, Europe is having to deal w a bold, direct, unapologetic truth-sayer.
This weekend Sunak will pay his first visit to Chequers with his family as prime minister before returning to No 10 to watch the England World Cup game. Downing Street hopes that football will provide the nation with a welcome tonic ahead of a hugely challenging period.
France and Germany are not used to Finland saying…anything. Now that neutrality is formally over, Europe is having to deal w a bold, direct, unapologetic truth-sayer.
Except France has long advocated an EU army (to be paid for by Germany and equipped from French arms factories).
Marin is saying exactly what Ayrault was saying in 2016 when he was Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères. It's not exactly news to anybody in Europe.
Some of his legal issues I don't even get why he'd open the door to investigation - for example, on the Mar a Lago stuff, why did he want a bunch of seemingly random confidential documents if he was planning to just store them in haphazard fashion in his office apparently to no purpose, and even if he did want it and believed they were his for some reason, why mess the archive people about when they sought access?
It’s the attitude, not the intent. As per Johnson. He simply did what he wanted and never thought he’d be pulled up on it.
Musk teases about a massive story regarding Twitter and Hunter Biden. And then we get a few tweets and some internal emails that show us that... Twitter had lots of internal arguments.
I thought we were going to see some evidence of government compulsion. But, sadly, nothing so exciting.
Musk's gone woke and suspended Kanye from Twitter.
After Ye posted the picture of Musk shirtless on holiday.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
They can rave all they want.
It's shit being the aggressor, especially when the defender has (increasingly) modern Western weapons and you have some Soviet era kit.
Musk teases about a massive story regarding Twitter and Hunter Biden. And then we get a few tweets and some internal emails that show us that... Twitter had lots of internal arguments.
I thought we were going to see some evidence of government compulsion. But, sadly, nothing so exciting.
Musk's gone woke and suspended Kanye from Twitter.
After Ye posted the picture of Musk shirtless on holiday.
It turns out that there's a limit to free speech.
Forget banned from Twitter, he should be locked up for that.
Think of the psychological distress he caused millions by letting them see such a horrible sight.
Musk teases about a massive story regarding Twitter and Hunter Biden. And then we get a few tweets and some internal emails that show us that... Twitter had lots of internal arguments.
I thought we were going to see some evidence of government compulsion. But, sadly, nothing so exciting.
On Musk, I think what's happening is that he's expecting the US government to push back heavily on what he's been doing with Twitter, and perhaps elsewhere. The SEC won't be happy for one.
If he thinks it's an inevitability, then the current administration is his enemy. And therefore get your excuses in first. "They're only doing this because *I* exposed (insert lie) here." Which his fanbois and the anti-Democrats will lick up.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
They will try to right for a while but make no progress. Any foothold Russia has in Ukraine is even less stable than the pre-2014 boundaries though.
The point the cited article makes is that Ukraine should negotiate when they are in a position that can deter any further Russian action. 2014 borders isn't that because they'd get fucking shelled across the border every day and I'm sure AFU would return the compliment. So 2014 borders ain't it, chief.
Musk teases about a massive story regarding Twitter and Hunter Biden. And then we get a few tweets and some internal emails that show us that... Twitter had lots of internal arguments.
I thought we were going to see some evidence of government compulsion. But, sadly, nothing so exciting.
On Musk, I think what's happening is that he's expecting the US government to push back heavily on what he's been doing with Twitter, and perhaps elsewhere. The SEC won't be happy for one.
If he thinks it's an inevitability, then the current administration is his enemy. And therefore get your excuses in first. "They're only doing this because *I* exposed (insert lie) here." Which his fanbois and the anti-Democrats will lick up.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
They can rave all they want.
It's shit being the aggressor, especially when the defender has (increasingly) modern Western weapons and you have some Soviet era kit.
The thing that's really important to Russia is not borders, but sanctions. They need the sanctions lifted - and the longer they stay on, the harder the economy will be hit. Therefore they'll want *all* sanctions lifted in return for what they get.
Which is another reason their current negotiating 'position' is so laughable.
Another thing to note: the first seven months of this war was all about escalation by Russia, which led to Leon's increasingly frantic "OMG We're all going to DIE!!!!" drunken rambles. Yet they've gone relatively quiet over the last month, with few stories of wunderwaffe that will swamp the UK. This makes me think that there may be something going on behind the scenes in Moscow that makes it more amenable to a diplomatic solution.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
They will try to right for a while but make no progress. Any foothold Russia has in Ukraine is even less stable than the pre-2014 boundaries though.
The point the cited article makes is that Ukraine should negotiate when they are in a position that can deter any further Russian action. 2014 borders isn't that because they'd get fucking shelled across the border every day and I'm sure AFU would return the compliment. So 2014 borders ain't it, chief.
It’s saying don’t negotiate now.
Pre 2014 boundaries is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a durable peace
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
They can rave all they want.
It's shit being the aggressor, especially when the defender has (increasingly) modern Western weapons and you have some Soviet era kit.
The thing that's really important to Russia is not borders, but sanctions. They need the sanctions lifted - and the longer they stay on, the harder the economy will be hit. Therefore they'll want *all* sanctions lifted in return for what they get.
Which is another reason their current negotiating 'position' is so laughable.
Another thing to note: the first seven months of this war was all about escalation by Russia, which led to Leon's increasingly frantic "OMG We're all going to DIE!!!!" drunken rambles. Yet they've gone relatively quiet over the last month, with few stories of wunderwaffe that will swamp the UK. This makes me think that there may be something going on behind the scenes in Moscow that makes it more amenable to a diplomatic solution.
There does seem to be increasing recognition in the Russian state media that there army has massively underperformed expectations. It is going to be a miserable winter for the Mobiks in their ill prepared foxholes, while Moscow attempts to scrape together some regular forces and continues the drone war on civilians.
It looks far more likely that the Russians will give up than the Ukranians, and hard to see the Russians taking serious offensive action again. I don't think that Ukraine will just accept current lines.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Not just cruel and barbaric, Putin was profoundly stupid in setting up a war that he has to lose from the perspective of the other actors. It is what it is. Russia must lose this war.
Not telling Ukraine what to do, but trading Crimea might be a smart move. Russia gets Crimea in exchange for getting out of the rest of Ukraine and leaving them alone to do what they want on their own territory. This means Ukraine putting Crimea into play, now and in the future. Once the ceasefire has been agreed, arm the isthmus to the teeth and train their guns on the Kerch strait, to be used if Russia doesn't behave. Switch the water back on (can be switched back off again). Crimea has never viably been run without a chunk of the mainland to which it is attached. So allow Russia to try.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Not just cruel and barbaric, Putin was profoundly stupid in setting up a war that he has to lose from the perspective of the other actors. It is what it is. Russia must lose this war.
Not telling Ukraine what to do, but trading Crimea might be a smart move. Russia gets Crimea in exchange for getting out of the rest of Ukraine and leaving them alone to do what they want on their own territory. This means Ukraine putting Crimea into play, now and in the future. Once the ceasefire has been agreed, arm the isthmus to the teeth and train their guns on the Kerch strait, to be used if Russia doesn't behave. Switch the water back on (can be switched back off again). Crimea has never viably been run without a chunk of the mainland to which it is attached. So allow Russia to try.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
Their TV talking-head cheerleaders are going to have to do some political gymnastics to explain it away, for sure.
But as a read across for any other tyrannical regime wanting to undertake wars of aggression in the C21st - especially where it is conducting warfare by war crime - then pre-2014 boundaries has to be the requirement.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
They can rave all they want.
It's shit being the aggressor, especially when the defender has (increasingly) modern Western weapons and you have some Soviet era kit.
There was a hilarious talk by an experienced junior officer to some Russian conscripts heading for the front line about a month ago. He explained that the Ukrainians would be coming towards them with all the best NATO kit. "Let me tell you," he said "you do not want that kit to get away, you will need it."
On the film theme, Under Siege currently showing on film 4. Steven Seagal has gone on a curious trajectory when it comes to politics. He started off with environmental and conservation causes and now appears to be a pro-Putin propagandist. Certainly raises a few questions about the sincerity and motives of his earlier conservation work.
There is a long history of environmentalism (and related subjects) and fascist/Nazi politics.
Himmler was big on animal welfare and organic farming, for example.
Think Blood & Soil, banging on about bodily Purity, The Strong Man In The Wild etc etc
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Not just cruel and barbaric, Putin was profoundly stupid in setting up a war that he has to lose from the perspective of the other actors. It is what it is. Russia must lose this war.
Not telling Ukraine what to do, but trading Crimea might be a smart move. Russia gets Crimea in exchange for getting out of the rest of Ukraine and leaving them alone to do what they want on their own territory. This means Ukraine putting Crimea into play, now and in the future. Once the ceasefire has been agreed, arm the isthmus to the teeth and train their guns on the Kerch strait, to be used if Russia doesn't behave. Switch the water back on (can be switched back off again). Crimea has never viably been run without a chunk of the mainland to which it is attached. So allow Russia to try.
The reason Russia keeps seizing Crimea, in 1783, in 1874 and 1921 as well as 2014, is to tighten their control over the Black Sea and deny others access to it. Particularly Ukraine, which will be effectively constrained, if not cut off entirely, from maritime trade if it doesn't control Crimea. It was taken away from Ukraine in 1921 for that reason only, to make sure Ukraine couldn't launch a successful revolution as a viable state independent of the USSR. That still holds good. The Crimean Bridge, indeed, appears to have been partly built to stop ships from reaching Mariupol.
That's even before we consider the resources in the Black Sea, notably oil and gas, which might allow Ukraine considerable funds to be nicked by its oligarchs rebuild and rearm itself and give Europe a serious chance of being independent of Russian gas.
There is a reason why Ukraine is not giving up its claim to Crimea, and why Russia is so desperate to hang on to it. Strategically, if Russia is able to consolidate its hold on Crimea that's a significant victory for them and a defeat for everyone else. Far more so than anything that happens in the Don region.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
At that point, the Ukrainians will be stoned or buggered?
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
If they agree a ceasefire on the 3 December 2022 borders, will the Russian reaction be "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that." ?
That's why Ukraine has to make the cost of occupation higher than Russia is willing to bear. It has no choice.
England are the biggest unbeaten team remaining. Well well
Unfortunately means almost nothing.
Senegal in round 2, France in the quarter finals, Spain in the semis, Brazil in the final. Win those four (especially the last three) and we will be undeniably the best in the world.
Yes, but as @Driver rightly points out, the alternative route really isn't obviously easier. We'd likely have to beat Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil before beating probably France or Spain?
Winning World Cups is fecking hard, and is only getting harder as so many teams improve. This, no doubt, is why so few nations have ever won a World Cup, despite it being a global game
Football is one of England's many wonderful gifts to the world. Unfortunately it is REALLY popular
Needs a lot of luck too.
I'd say there are probably nine teams in the world that England aren't definitely favourites against, all else (form/injuries/suspension) being equal. One of them didn't even qualify, two didn't make it out of the group stage. That still leaves six teams (*) and you're going to have to beat at least three of them.
(*) Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil, France, Spain, Portugal. And maybe, based on history, Croatia.
And we are plotting the most obvious opponents to the final, when in reality a couple of shocks (including against us) and the draw opens up a bit, cf our potential opponents vs our actual opponents last time out. So, we get:
16s: Senegal QF: France or Poland SF: Spain, Portugal, Switzerland or Morocco F: Netherlands, USA, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Croatia, Brazil or South Korea
Yes, some are more likely and others pretty improbable especially with those Final opponents, but don't rule out some non-obvious match ups along the way.
Shockwise, I fancy the USA to get through, against a somewhat lacklustre Holland
And Japan to beat Croatia (is that a shock?)
I can't bear to think about England Senegal
England will beat Senegal. The next game could be tough. I think England will go all the way though. You heard it here first!
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
The never never more like, will be some interesting bases for the future.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
In terms of degrading a significant military threat, the humiliation of the Russian military by Ukraine supported by the USA and other NATO countries has been a bargain. For roughly a single annual military budget of the UK, the major threat to NATO has been eliminated as a viable non-nuclear threat. Real value for money, and at no cost in NATO lives.
Russia is heading for a comparable defeat to the Tsarist Russo-Japanese war. For a century Russia has idolised its military, and such a catastrophic under performance will be a major shock to the Russian psyche.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
The never never more like, will be some interesting bases for the future.
The history of Lend Lease military aid suggests that nearly none of it will be paid for, in the end.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
If they agree a ceasefire on the 3 December 2022 borders, will the Russian reaction be "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that." ?
That's why Ukraine has to make the cost of occupation higher than Russia is willing to bear. It has no choice.
They have actually said they will only agree to a ceasefire if they are allowed to occupy all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson.
They didn't control all of those areas even at their high water mark.
So they're saying, at a time when they're in retreat, that the other side needs to make major concessions to them before peace talks can begin.
That is in no way a serious offer. It's clearly purely for domestic consumption. 'Well, we offered to talk on the basis of all of Holy Russia being recognised but the nasty Ukrainians and NATO said no because they're greedy fascist cowards who need to be eliminated waah waah waah...'
Even on the rare occasions he's sober Lavrov is normally more coherent than this. So there must be something fairly dramatic going on in the Kremlin to even make the offer.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
The never never more like, will be some interesting bases for the future.
The history of Lend Lease military aid suggests that nearly none of it will be paid for, in the end.
Military aid is like chewing gum. You don't want it back.
Don't know who said it, but it was a fair comment.
Covid news! The government has updated its guidance to test manufacturers for home use lateral flow tests. The main point imo is they don't want us to have to stick things so far in that we gag.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
In terms of degrading a significant military threat, the humiliation of the Russian military by Ukraine supported by the USA and other NATO countries has been a bargain. For roughly a single annual military budget of the UK, the major threat to NATO has been eliminated as a viable non-nuclear threat. Real value for money, and at no cost in NATO lives.
Russia is heading for a comparable defeat to the Tsarist Russo-Japanese war. For a century Russia has idolised its military, and such a catastrophic under performance will be a major shock to the Russian psyche.
No it's been a fucking disaster in so many ways. Absolutely disgusting comment from you, you're usually better than this.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
If they agree a ceasefire on the 3 December 2022 borders, will the Russian reaction be "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that." ?
That's why Ukraine has to make the cost of occupation higher than Russia is willing to bear. It has no choice.
They have actually said they will only agree to a ceasefire if they are allowed to occupy all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson.
They didn't control all of those areas even at their high water mark.
So they're saying, at a time when they're in retreat, that the other side needs to make major concessions to them before peace talks can begin.
That is in no way a serious offer. It's clearly purely for domestic consumption. 'Well, we offered to talk on the basis of all of Holy Russia being recognised but the nasty Ukrainians and NATO said no because they're greedy fascist cowards who need to be eliminated waah waah waah...'
Even on the rare occasions he's sober Lavrov is normally more coherent than this. So there must be something fairly dramatic going on in the Kremlin to even make the offer.
At the end of WWII, the Japanese were trying for a “peace” like this. Empire intact, keep much of what they had conquered in the war… they even tried to get the Russians to signup for a project where, in return for the Russians help protect Japan, Japan would later join in a joint surprise attack on the US.
Given the US was reading all of this via broken Japanese codes, it is easy to think that this was why the American leadership was convinced that the Japanese had t actually come to terms with losing the war.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
In terms of degrading a significant military threat, the humiliation of the Russian military by Ukraine supported by the USA and other NATO countries has been a bargain. For roughly a single annual military budget of the UK, the major threat to NATO has been eliminated as a viable non-nuclear threat. Real value for money, and at no cost in NATO lives.
Russia is heading for a comparable defeat to the Tsarist Russo-Japanese war. For a century Russia has idolised its military, and such a catastrophic under performance will be a major shock to the Russian psyche.
What it will probably do is divert their bullying towards other targets. Russia is a congenital bully and a bully needs countries to bully. So when they are done with Ukraine they will bully Kazakhstan or Georgia or someone else instead.
The best piece of advice I had seen on dealing with Russia is in a book by a Reagan administration staffer from 40 years ago. He was told: "Remember they are blackmailers - they will do everything except go to war [with the West]".
On the film theme, Under Siege currently showing on film 4. Steven Seagal has gone on a curious trajectory when it comes to politics. He started off with environmental and conservation causes and now appears to be a pro-Putin propagandist. Certainly raises a few questions about the sincerity and motives of his earlier conservation work.
There is a long history of environmentalism (and related subjects) and fascist/Nazi politics.
Himmler was big on animal welfare and organic farming, for example.
Think Blood & Soil, banging on about bodily Purity, The Strong Man In The Wild etc etc
@FrankBooth - Walther von Darré is a key name to look up. There are books about him. Not so many about his mate Hans Merkel though.
Green is far right. It is not left. Animal welfare is a completely different issue. Animal welfare has deep roots on the left. Greenism absolutely does not.
@Malmesbury - Yes. On Himmler's "organic" farming: he had a biodynamic (i.e. Steinerite) farm. The term "organic" in its stupid use in farming comes from Steiner. (In the sane world, all food is organic.)
The usage of the triquetra symbol also comes from Steinerism. It predates Steiner of course, but I mean its current usage. It is associated with "social threefolding" and the "people, planet, and profit" ideology. That is most definitely NOT leftwing. It's an ideology of not just a corporate state but a cosmic corporate state where profit-making business is totally in tune with both the world volk and the cosmos.
Triodos Bank where much of the fake "left" bank nowadays, is also Steinerite. Look at that triquetra.
The Steinerite company Weleda had their man Sigmund Rascher operating inside Dachau concentration camp where he carried out murderous research and developed gas chambers.
Meanwhile in England see for example the Betteshanger Conference and the line that comes down through the Soil Association.
See in particular Gerard Wallop aka Viscount Lymington who wrote "Famine in England" which advocated great respect for the TB virus and its actions in poor areas.
Greenism was boosted in west Germany in the 1970s to pull the rug out from under the left. Known former SS and other Nazi figures were involved in setting up the German Greens.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
If they agree a ceasefire on the 3 December 2022 borders, will the Russian reaction be "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that." ?
That's why Ukraine has to make the cost of occupation higher than Russia is willing to bear. It has no choice.
They have actually said they will only agree to a ceasefire if they are allowed to occupy all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson.
They didn't control all of those areas even at their high water mark.
So they're saying, at a time when they're in retreat, that the other side needs to make major concessions to them before peace talks can begin.
That is in no way a serious offer. It's clearly purely for domestic consumption. 'Well, we offered to talk on the basis of all of Holy Russia being recognised but the nasty Ukrainians and NATO said no because they're greedy fascist cowards who need to be eliminated waah waah waah...'
Even on the rare occasions he's sober Lavrov is normally more coherent than this. So there must be something fairly dramatic going on in the Kremlin to even make the offer.
I assume it's just to give a boost to western 'ceasefire now!' people - they'll go, sure the offer is unreasonable but its an opening gambit at least, we have to engage whilst they are talking.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
The never never more like, will be some interesting bases for the future.
The history of Lend Lease military aid suggests that nearly none of it will be paid for, in the end.
At risk of upsetting kamski, from a US perspective at the least the financial cost to them has had a good return even if they write it all off.
No that doesn't mean they wanted this or that war is not horrible, but at what to them is loose change they've helped the Ukrainians effect real resistance.
I'm starting to think England were 175 light of a good score here.
If it were a nine day test, yep.
One comment on cricinfo remarked if the national minister in charge of roads is moonlighting as the pitch director at this venue the country's highways are in hoid hands.
England have at least given a good shot at attempting to win by going speedily when it was their turn.
I'm starting to think England were 175 light of a good score here.
If it were a nine day test, yep.
One comment on cricinfo remarked if the national minister in charge of roads is moonlighting as the pitch director at this venue the country's highways are in hoid hands.
England have at least given a good shot at attempting to win by going speedily when it was their turn.
I would have thought whoever is PM this week would be better served by asking the pitch director at this venue to moonlight as minister in charge of roads.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
The never never more like, will be some interesting bases for the future.
The history of Lend Lease military aid suggests that nearly none of it will be paid for, in the end.
At risk of upsetting kamski, from a US perspective at the least the financial cost to them has had a good return even if they write it all off.
No that doesn't mean they wanted this or that war is not horrible, but at what to them is loose change they've helped the Ukrainians effect real resistance.
Indeed. The simple truth is that a show down with Putin & Co was going to happen somewhere. Ukraine today or maybe the Baltics tomorrow.
Remember the enthusiasm with which people were selling the “The Baltics aren’t worth dying for” line?
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
It's good that possible terms are even being discussed, and the reported Russian proposal is obviously an initinal negotiating position. A similarly unattributable Ukrainian indication of what they might consider short of total victory would be helpful. At this point, I think Russia is going to need to accept that Ukraine joins NATO, which would legitimise direct Western intervention in the event of future invasions. In return Ukrainian acceptance of something like 2014 boundaries with the Russian-controlled areas on a 50-year lease might be conceivable.
It's not up to us, and there's little point in us exchanging ideas here for what either side might accept. Nor should the West dictate terms to Ukraine. But Britain and the US shouldn't actively encourage an unending bloodbath.
Selling Crimea to Russia would be in line with American precedent, and provide funds to rebuild Ukraine without humiliating Russia by saying reparations. (How much would be grabbed by America to pay for all those "free" weapons is left as an exercise for the negotiators.)
Almost all of the military aid provided to Ukraine from the US ($54bn) is via Lend-Lease so somebody will have to pay for it eventually. Cash, grass or ass. As the Americans say.
The never never more like, will be some interesting bases for the future.
The history of Lend Lease military aid suggests that nearly none of it will be paid for, in the end.
Military aid is like chewing gum. You don't want it back.
Don't know who said it, but it was a fair comment.
The headline costs are hugely overstated in any case. Lots of it is obsolescent military equipment just sitting in a warehouse somewhere which would be thrown away in a few more years and just soaks up money in maintenance. A lot more of it is stuff ordered from American companies that pay taxes etc on their extra profits.
So the net cost is much smaller than the headline figures imply.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Not just cruel and barbaric, Putin was profoundly stupid in setting up a war that he has to lose from the perspective of the other actors. It is what it is. Russia must lose this war.
Not telling Ukraine what to do, but trading Crimea might be a smart move. Russia gets Crimea in exchange for getting out of the rest of Ukraine and leaving them alone to do what they want on their own territory. This means Ukraine putting Crimea into play, now and in the future. Once the ceasefire has been agreed, arm the isthmus to the teeth and train their guns on the Kerch strait, to be used if Russia doesn't behave. Switch the water back on (can be switched back off again). Crimea has never viably been run without a chunk of the mainland to which it is attached. So allow Russia to try.
The reason Russia keeps seizing Crimea, in 1783, in 1874 and 1921 as well as 2014, is to tighten their control over the Black Sea and deny others access to it. Particularly Ukraine, which will be effectively constrained, if not cut off entirely, from maritime trade if it doesn't control Crimea. It was taken away from Ukraine in 1921 for that reason only, to make sure Ukraine couldn't launch a successful revolution as a viable state independent of the USSR. That still holds good. The Crimean Bridge, indeed, appears to have been partly built to stop ships from reaching Mariupol.
That's even before we consider the resources in the Black Sea, notably oil and gas, which might allow Ukraine considerable funds to be nicked by its oligarchs rebuild and rearm itself and give Europe a serious chance of being independent of Russian gas.
There is a reason why Ukraine is not giving up its claim to Crimea, and why Russia is so desperate to hang on to it. Strategically, if Russia is able to consolidate its hold on Crimea that's a significant victory for them and a defeat for everyone else. Far more so than anything that happens in the Don region.
Interesting. I think it complicates things. To @Dura_Ace's valid point, Russia has to get something it wants from any agreement with Ukraine for it to stick. That equation doesn't change just because it is a murderous regime. It looks like it wants Crimea above everything else? Could be difficult for Ukraine to get it what it wants most - for Russia to get out of its country and stay out - if it retakes, and holds, Crimea.
That should give the WASPI group something to moan about.
One problem might be that people who lose their jobs in their early to mid-60s might find it hard to get a new one so close to retirement, and still a couple of years off the pension.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
It's good that possible terms are even being discussed, and the reported Russian proposal is obviously an initinal negotiating position. A similarly unattributable Ukrainian indication of what they might consider short of total victory would be helpful. At this point, I think Russia is going to need to accept that Ukraine joins NATO, which would legitimise direct Western intervention in the event of future invasions. In return Ukrainian acceptance of something like 2014 boundaries with the Russian-controlled areas on a 50-year lease might be conceivable.
It's not up to us, and there's little point in us exchanging ideas here for what either side might accept. Nor should the West dictate terms to Ukraine. But Britain and the US shouldn't actively encourage an unending bloodbath.
It is not an 'initial offer' or 'possible terms.' They are, in effect, demanding Ukraine's unconditional surrender before they talk about whether it will be allowed to survive as a state. That is not in any diplomatic lexicon a basis for negotiation. It would be like Brest Litovsk but worse and with Russia on the other side.
An 'initial offer' might be withdrawal from Zaporizhia and Kherson, plus reparations, before discussion on Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk. I don't think the Ukrainians would accept it, but you can see from their point of view how talks might start there.
But Russia still don't want talks. Whether that's because they believe they can still win, possibly through a halt to NATO supplies, or because they're so terrified that the concessions they would have to make would lead to their humiliation and overthrow anyway I wouldn't know.
Will Western support for Ukraine increase, decrease, or remain the same following a ceasefire? The answer is obvious: it will decrease.
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop. A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pre-2014 boundaries
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
If they do get pushed back to the 2014 borders I don't think that the Russian reaction will be, "Fair enough, lads, we'll leave it at that."
But that logic no war could ever have ended. Yet it turns out nations do 'leave it at that' all the time. Yes there are simmering clashes disputes, but nations have lost wars and realised they cannot just try again. Would Russia get that? Probably not, but your post seems to rule out any peace in any conflict ever.
Personally I've never thought this will end with Ukraine restoring 2014 boundaries (I don't think international support will hold up past restoring 2022 boundaries), which rules out formal NATO membership, which is another reason that pretext for the 2022 invasion was nonsense.
Comments
CNN
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/long-term-risks-premature-ceasefire-ukraine
Quite absurd to trust any ceasefire promises from Putin. At best, he can only be deterred.
Trump's legal woes just keep piling up
On Friday, former White House lawyers Cipollone and Philbin testified before a grand jury investigating Trump.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/02/trump-lawyers-grand-jury-00071960
A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls. The imperative of seeking to avert a future war in Ukraine thus requires continuing to help Ukraine fight to make necessary military gains and secure necessary reconstruction assistance rather than seeking to freeze war prematurely.
https://www.gbnews.uk/politics/john-curtice-expert-says-any-polling-recovery-for-tories-under-rishi-sunak-has-probably-come-to-a-halt/400355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chJlJgrvfBY
This bit is right, fo sho. Once we don't have regular videos of Russian teenage fascists bleeding out in the mud overdubbed with that "Vanka! Vstanka!" song to stimulate our jaded sensibilities the appetite for engagement will drop.
A stable and sustainable cessation of hostilities can occur only if the West helps Ukraine use its current momentum to secure a sufficiently advantageous position from which it will be able to effectively deter a future Russian attack even as the correlation of forces changes and Western support falls.
I'd like somebody to explain what this "sufficiently advantageous position" is that would deter, in perpetuity, another SMO. Pushing the Russians back to the 2014 borders wouldn't do it. Retaking Crimea definitely wouldn't. The fall of Putin might but probably won't. Argentina had regime change after the Falklands and it's only lack of capacity not lack of desire that's stopping them from doing it again.
The collapse of the Russian Federation might suffice but that is definitely a case of, а что боролись, на то и напоролись... (Figuratively; be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)
Pakistan 200/0 in reply to England's 659.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/62865880
It would also need very strong US leadership to bribe and/or threaten the usual suspects who be inclined to veto Ukrainian membership. Biden is a very doctrinaire PNAC hegemonist so he might be sympathetic to doing it, if they can get him out of the bath.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/be-more-like-theresa-may-tories-told-crshzntdv
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/why-millions-50-somethings-will-lose-10000/ (£££)
An uneasy peace now creates the conditions for war in the future and Ukraine’s position will almost certainly be less strong
That way Russia doesn’t event have the fig leaf of an excuse if they invade again in the future
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 12 other groups on Thursday warned the European Union against adopting rules that could exclude Amazon, Google, Microsoft and other non-EU cloud services providers from the European market.
...
At issue is a draft proposal from ENISA for an EU certification scheme vouching for the cybersecurity of cloud services that would determine how governments and companies in the bloc select a vendor for their business.
...
"The CSP's registered head office and global headquarters shall be established in a member state of the EU," the document said.
Cloud services would have to be operated and maintained from the EU, and all cloud service customer data stored and processed in the EU, with the bloc's laws taking precedence over non-EU laws including countries with extra-territorial measures.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-chamber-commerce-warns-against-draft-eu-plan-exclude-non-eu-cloud-vendors-2022-12-01/
Good luck finding an American public sector organisation on a non-American cloud.
Russian president not acting in 'good faith', says Foreign Secretary as he tells West to think carefully before entering negotiations
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/02/vladimir-putin-could-use-peace-talks-restock-army-warns-james/ (£££)
https://twitter.com/PeterZeihan/status/1598655728855678978
Law set to be tightened to safeguard rights of diplomats’ chefs, nannies and cleaners
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/modern-day-slavery-london-embassies-chefs-nannies-cleaners-rights-b1044389.html
Musk teases about a massive story regarding Twitter and Hunter Biden. And then we get a few tweets and some internal emails that show us that... Twitter had lots of internal arguments.
I thought we were going to see some evidence of government compulsion. But, sadly, nothing so exciting.
It turns out that there's a limit to free speech.
It's shit being the aggressor, especially when the defender has (increasingly) modern Western weapons and you have some Soviet era kit.
Think of the psychological distress he caused millions by letting them see such a horrible sight.
If he thinks it's an inevitability, then the current administration is his enemy. And therefore get your excuses in first. "They're only doing this because *I* exposed (insert lie) here." Which his fanbois and the anti-Democrats will lick up.
As ever with Musk, assume he is lying.
Which is another reason their current negotiating 'position' is so laughable.
Another thing to note: the first seven months of this war was all about escalation by Russia, which led to Leon's increasingly frantic "OMG We're all going to DIE!!!!" drunken rambles. Yet they've gone relatively quiet over the last month, with few stories of wunderwaffe that will swamp the UK. This makes me think that there may be something going on behind the scenes in Moscow that makes it more amenable to a diplomatic solution.
Pre 2014 boundaries is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a durable peace
You also need a more normal Russian regime.
It looks far more likely that the Russians will give up than the Ukranians, and hard to see the Russians taking serious offensive action again. I don't think that Ukraine will just accept current lines.
Not telling Ukraine what to do, but trading Crimea might be a smart move. Russia gets Crimea in exchange for getting out of the rest of Ukraine and leaving them alone to do what they want on their own territory. This means Ukraine putting Crimea into play, now and in the future. Once the ceasefire has been agreed, arm the isthmus to the teeth and train their guns on the Kerch strait, to be used if Russia doesn't behave. Switch the water back on (can be switched back off again). Crimea has never viably been run without a chunk of the mainland to which it is attached. So allow Russia to try.
But as a read across for any other tyrannical regime wanting to undertake wars of aggression in the C21st - especially where it is conducting warfare by war crime - then pre-2014 boundaries has to be the requirement.
Himmler was big on animal welfare and organic farming, for example.
Think Blood & Soil, banging on about bodily Purity, The Strong Man In The Wild etc etc
That's even before we consider the resources in the Black Sea, notably oil and gas, which might allow Ukraine considerable funds to
be nicked by its oligarchsrebuild and rearm itself and give Europe a serious chance of being independent of Russian gas.There is a reason why Ukraine is not giving up its claim to Crimea, and why Russia is so desperate to hang on to it. Strategically, if Russia is able to consolidate its hold on Crimea that's a significant victory for them and a defeat for everyone else. Far more so than anything that happens in the Don region.
That's why Ukraine has to make the cost of occupation higher than Russia is willing to bear. It has no choice.
Russia is heading for a comparable defeat to the Tsarist Russo-Japanese war. For a century Russia has idolised its military, and such a catastrophic under performance will be a major shock to the Russian psyche.
This is going wrong, they explain, because Zelinsky is the Antichrist. Nothing else explains it.
They didn't control all of those areas even at their high water mark.
So they're saying, at a time when they're in retreat, that the other side needs to make major concessions to them before peace talks can begin.
That is in no way a serious offer. It's clearly purely for domestic consumption. 'Well, we offered to talk on the basis of all of Holy Russia being recognised but the nasty Ukrainians and NATO said no because they're greedy fascist cowards who need to be eliminated waah waah waah...'
Even on the rare occasions he's sober Lavrov is normally more coherent than this. So there must be something fairly dramatic going on in the Kremlin to even make the offer.
Unlike football...
Don't know who said it, but it was a fair comment.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lateral-flow-validation-prioritisation-criteria-for-rapid-diagnostic-assays-for-specific-sars-cov-2-antigens
When did these commentators ever have it?
Given the US was reading all of this via broken Japanese codes, it is easy to think that this was why the American leadership was convinced that the Japanese had t actually come to terms with losing the war.
The best piece of advice I had seen on dealing with Russia is in a book by a Reagan administration staffer from 40 years ago. He was told: "Remember they are blackmailers - they will do everything except go to war [with the West]".
Green is far right. It is not left. Animal welfare is a completely different issue. Animal welfare has deep roots on the left. Greenism absolutely does not.
@Malmesbury - Yes. On Himmler's "organic" farming: he had a biodynamic (i.e. Steinerite) farm. The term "organic" in its stupid use in farming comes from Steiner. (In the sane world, all food is organic.)
The usage of the triquetra symbol also comes from Steinerism. It predates Steiner of course, but I mean its current usage. It is associated with "social threefolding" and the "people, planet, and profit" ideology. That is most definitely NOT leftwing. It's an ideology of not just a corporate state but a cosmic corporate state where profit-making business is totally in tune with both the world volk and the cosmos.
Triodos Bank where much of the fake "left" bank nowadays, is also Steinerite. Look at that triquetra.
The Steinerite company Weleda had their man Sigmund Rascher operating inside Dachau concentration camp where he carried out murderous research and developed gas chambers.
Meanwhile in England see for example the Betteshanger Conference and the line that comes down through the Soil Association.
See in particular Gerard Wallop aka Viscount Lymington who wrote "Famine in England" which advocated great respect for the TB virus and its actions in poor areas.
Greenism was boosted in west Germany in the 1970s to pull the rug out from under the left. Known former SS and other Nazi figures were involved in setting up the German Greens.
The real message of Greenery is Malthusianism.
So, FrankB, you had the Greens completely wrong.
No that doesn't mean they wanted this or that war is not horrible, but at what to them is loose change they've helped the Ukrainians effect real resistance.
England have at least given a good shot at attempting to win by going speedily when it was their turn.
Remember the enthusiasm with which people were selling the “The Baltics aren’t worth dying for” line?
It's not up to us, and there's little point in us exchanging ideas here for what either side might accept. Nor should the West dictate terms to Ukraine. But Britain and the US shouldn't actively encourage an unending bloodbath.
So the net cost is much smaller than the headline figures imply.
An 'initial offer' might be withdrawal from Zaporizhia and Kherson, plus reparations, before discussion on Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk. I don't think the Ukrainians would accept it, but you can see from their point of view how talks might start there.
But Russia still don't want talks. Whether that's because they believe they can still win, possibly through a halt to NATO supplies, or because they're so terrified that the concessions they would have to make would lead to their humiliation and overthrow anyway I wouldn't know.
Personally I've never thought this will end with Ukraine restoring 2014 boundaries (I don't think international support will hold up past restoring 2022 boundaries), which rules out formal NATO membership, which is another reason that pretext for the 2022 invasion was nonsense.