It feels to me that the non-Trump votes have to coalesce round DeSantis or Trump will win again.
That’s one scenario.
But DeSantis might prove not up to it on the national stage; Trump might implode in the next twelve months. The two are correctly favourites (probably), but it’s not certain either will get it.
And the rest of the field is available at decently long odds - some like Hogan very long indeed.
FWIW, I’ve laid Trump hard. Not something I thought I’d say in public.
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.
Unless, of course, the loss of Crimea led to a revolution in Russia and the coming to power of a more amenable regime.
The risk, however, is it would lead to a military coup led by an even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime.
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.
It’s about as sensible as the Argentine “peace offer” at the start of the Falklands War.
1) We keep the Falklands and South Georgia 2) The British go home 3) We then have talks about… stuff
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.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
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.
Unless, of course, the loss of Crimea led to a revolution in Russia and the coming to power of a more amenable regime.
The risk, however, is it would lead to a military coup led by an even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime.
Unlikely. As you pointed out possession of Crimea has been a consistent Russian priority.
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.
If Ukraine can take and hold Crimea, the part most important to Russia and apparently the most pro Russia population and thus presumably the part they will fight hardest for, then I'd think they would be in such a strong position that Russia would have no choice in that scenario.
It would require Ukraine to be in a massively stronger position surely, and if at that point the dynamic changes. It's one reason I'm sceptical they can get to that point.
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.
Unless, of course, the loss of Crimea led to a revolution in Russia and the coming to power of a more amenable regime.
The risk, however, is it would lead to a military coup led by an even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime.
Unlikely. As you pointed out. Possession of Crimea has been a consistent Russian priority.
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.
Unless, of course, the loss of Crimea led to a revolution in Russia and the coming to power of a more amenable regime.
The risk, however, is it would lead to a military coup led by an even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime.
Not sure how “even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime” would manage to be even more imperialist and fascist than Putin and the boys.
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.
Yes, it seems rather perverse to describe a demand like that as a genuine offer of terms even as an intentionally unreasonable opening gambit.
It demonstrates what I said though - it was about fracturing western resolve by trying to get them to see it as a ceasefire opportunity, which plenty will have at least some domestic agitation for.
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.
If Ukraine can take and hold Crimea, the part most important to Russia and apparently the most pro Russia population and thus presumably the part they will fight hardest for, then I'd think they would be in such a strong position that Russia would have no choice in that scenario.
It would require Ukraine to be in a massively stronger position surely, and if at that point the dynamic changes. It's one reason I'm sceptical they can get to that point.
The issue - and it is a real issue - is I think we would almost certainly start seeing atrocities on the other side if Ukraine invaded Crimea. Even assuming every soldier in the Ukrainian army behaved like absolute angels - which is one hell of an assumption especially under the circumstances - a huge number of ethnic Russians would undoubtedly try to flee on the assumption they would be in line for revenge attacks after Bucha.
That wouldn't be a good look, and might in itself undermine Western support for Ukraine.
But equally, if the Ukrainians do get to invade Crimea you would have to assume the Russian army had collapsed so far there would be no way back for them anyway.
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.
It's a fair point, but increases seem inevitable so that will never not be an issue.
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.
I wuld say it is just a pity the west had not stepped it up and let the Ukranians give Russia a huge pounding to really deter the numpties from trying again. They are a real nasty bunch waging war on civilians and really deserve such a kicking that they will remember it for a very long time. Rank bad uns to the core.
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.
Unless, of course, the loss of Crimea led to a revolution in Russia and the coming to power of a more amenable regime.
The risk, however, is it would lead to a military coup led by an even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime.
Unlikely. As you pointed out. Possession of Crimea has been a consistent Russian priority.
Which one?
Unlikely that revolution would lead to a Russian regime more amenable to Ukraine holding Crimea for its strategic interest. (And would therefore leave Ukraine alone, which is its foremost objective)
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.
What Russia should get out of it is a good kicking and permanent sanctions till they understand that they need to start acting like humans.
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.
Plus all that free testing of what really works, invaluable for yanks.
Biden seems like a decent President to me, but I will be glad for at least one reason if he loses/does not stand again, and that's if I no longer have hear about Hunter Biden again.
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.
If Ukraine can take and hold Crimea, the part most important to Russia and apparently the most pro Russia population and thus presumably the part they will fight hardest for, then I'd think they would be in such a strong position that Russia would have no choice in that scenario.
It would require Ukraine to be in a massively stronger position surely, and if at that point the dynamic changes. It's one reason I'm sceptical they can get to that point.
The issue - and it is a real issue - is I think we would almost certainly start seeing atrocities on the other side if Ukraine invaded Crimea. Even assuming every soldier in the Ukrainian army behaved like absolute angels - which is one hell of an assumption especially under the circumstances - a huge number of ethnic Russians would undoubtedly try to flee on the assumption they would be in line for revenge attacks after Bucha.
That wouldn't be a good look, and might in itself undermine Western support for Ukraine.
But equally, if the Ukrainians do get to invade Crimea you would have to assume the Russian army had collapsed so far there would be no way back for them anyway.
Yes indeed. Russia pulled out of Kherson city, but if they stood their ground in a major city I'm not sure western public support would hold up in the face of the sort of bombardment that would presumably need to take place from the Ukrainian side. Not when 'stop at 2014 boundaries for a ceasefire at least' would become a powerful message.
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.
Also remember that a lot of the numbers quoted by the politicians are somewhat out of thin air. As an example, the HIMARS rockets were about to be retired, so shipping the stockpile to Ukraine is actually costing very little money.
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.
At the moment it's not unreasonable for Ukraine to believe they are winning and that they can reverse some of the losses of 2014-5, as well as those since February. Given their advances since August this isn't fanciful.
If it's possible I think that Russia losing territory as a result of its February invasion would be an important lesson that aggression is not rewarded. We're a long way from 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.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
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.
Unless, of course, the loss of Crimea led to a revolution in Russia and the coming to power of a more amenable regime.
The risk, however, is it would lead to a military coup led by an even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime.
Not sure how “even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime” would manage to be even more imperialist and fascist than Putin and the boys.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
Alaska was $140m in 2021 money.
Alaska = oil, snow and Sarah Palin
So they paid way over the odds…
The good people of Alaska have just rejected Palin twice in 3 months (by 51.5-48.5 and then 55-45 - take the hint Sarah).
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
Alaska was $140m in 2021 money.
'Louisiana' Purchase - much of the Mid-West - was 15m USD in 1803 money ... 395m in 2022 money. Even better value.
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.
Russian strategy, insofar as they have one, seems to be to fight for a stalemate, rebuild the army, and then try again.
All talk of compromises leading to a lasting peace settlement is delusional wishful thinking.
It's exactly as Johnson said back in February. Russia have to lose, and be seen to lose. It's not a nice job, but it has to be done.
@Foxy this is probably turning out worse than the Russo-Japanese war. That at least was a very close run thing, with Japan effectively bankrupt, by the end of it. The Russian army gave a good account of itself in that war, but not in this one.
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.
Unless, of course, the loss of Crimea led to a revolution in Russia and the coming to power of a more amenable regime.
The risk, however, is it would lead to a military coup led by an even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime.
Unlikely. As you pointed out. Possession of Crimea has been a consistent Russian priority.
Which one?
Unlikely that revolution would lead to a Russian regime more amenable to Ukraine holding Crimea for its strategic interest. (And would therefore leave Ukraine alone, which is its foremost objective)
Certainly I think it's less likely, and AIUI even Navalny (if he's still alive) thinks Crimea is Russian terra irredente.
Although I have to say it's a bold assumption that Russia would leave Ukraine alone even if it had Crimea. After all, the whole point of having it is to keep Ukraine firmly under Russian influence. And it didn't stop the invasion earlier this year anyway.
Therefore, as Ukraine would be much stronger and better situated by holding Crimea arguably it becomes more important in the event of longstanding military tension for it to hold Crimea.
Unless, of course, it decided to trade Crimea for Russia agreeing to Ukrainian NATO and EU membership...
In lieu of one of my usual posts which I'm told are as turgid and dull as a Pakistani test innings (too soon ?), a couple of thoughts on the afternoon's equine action down Esher way.
The Tingle Creek is a strong renewal - SHISHKIN should win this assuming he's the same horse he was last season and I think the race with ENERGUMENE at Ascot took much more out of him than was recognised at the time. EDWARDSTONE is the interesting one in opposition - is the ground too quick for him?
I'd be opposing JONBON in the Henry VIII. I thought as a hurdler he looked better over further on stiffer tracks and this real speed test might catch him out on only his second chasing run. BOOTHILL at 7/2 looks the better betting proposition.
Elsewhere on the card, I saw AUTHORISED SPEED win at Lingfield but he beat nothing and 4/11 is a stupid price though this is a poor a race as you'll see on a Saturday at Sandown. COQUELICOT is a sporting each way bet at 6s in the Mares handicap hurdle with the Honeyball team in such good form.
I quite like PLAYFUL SAINT who doesn't have many miles on the clock in the 2.20 and the London "National" ( in my view you shouldn't call it a National if it's less than four miles) looks another weak race. REVELS HILL is very short but he has the potential - I'll offer ECLAIR DE GUYE in receipt of 20 lbs from the favourite.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
Alaska was $140m in 2021 money.
'Louisiana' Purchase - much of the Mid-West - was 15m USD in 1803 money ... 395m in 2022 money. Even better value.
The USA had some very shrewd deal-makers in the 19th century.
@Foxy this is probably turning out worse than the Russo-Japanese war. That at least was a very close run thing, with Japan effectively bankrupt, by the end of it. The Russian army gave a good account of itself in that war, but not in this one.
I'm assuming you're treating the Russian Navy separately there?
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.
Unless, of course, the loss of Crimea led to a revolution in Russia and the coming to power of a more amenable regime.
The risk, however, is it would lead to a military coup led by an even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime.
Not sure how “even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime” would manage to be even more imperialist and fascist than Putin and the boys.
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.
- Russia goes back to 2014 boundaries
- An offer by NATO to have a 50 mile DMZ along its border with Russia (to include Ukraine, and when the regime falls there, Belarus)
- Russia to do the same.
- that border to have only passive observation systems - and minefields/tank traps
- Longer range systems (HIMARS + successors) to be placed further back, so that they cannot attack beyond the DMZ.
- Ukraine to have an "iron dome" across its entire airspace.
Russia can sell this as having forced a demilitarized buffer zone with NATO.
And gets fuck all else.
War crimes tribunals and a basis for reparations to continue on their own timelines.
Oh, and Russia loses its security council veto. If it refuses, a replacement UN to be formed, that actually IS fit for purpose. The replacement to have teeth. Very, very nasty teeth.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
Alaska was $140m in 2021 money.
'Louisiana' Purchase - much of the Mid-West - was 15m USD in 1803 money ... 395m in 2022 money. Even better value.
Which resulted in large numbers of Frenchmen being driven into a swamp. Which in turn resulted in a form of the blues played on the accordion. #TooHighAPrice
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
Alaska was $140m in 2021 money.
'Louisiana' Purchase - much of the Mid-West - was 15m USD in 1803 money ... 395m in 2022 money. Even better value.
The USA had some very shrewd deal-makers in the 19th century.
AIR it was actually the French who made the offer. The Americans didn't even need to haggle.
Of course, at the time it was French influence/claims they're given up, as almost all the land was inhabited by First Nation peoples not French colonists. And the French couldn't keep it, due to the Royal Navy (heck, they couldn't even help their very valuable Carribean colonies) while the money could fund their land campaigns in Europe.
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.
- Russia goes back to 2014 boundaries
- An offer by NATO to have a 50 mile DMZ along its border with Russia (to include Ukraine, and when the regime falls there, Belarus)
- Russia to do the same.
- that border to have only passive observation systems - and minefields/tank traps
- Longer range systems (HIMARS + successors) to be placed further back, so that they cannot attack beyond the DMZ.
- Ukraine to have an "iron dome" across its entire airspace.
Russia can sell this as having forced a demilitarized buffer zone with NATO.
And gets fuck all else.
War crimes tribunals and a basis for reparations to continue on their own timelines.
Oh, and Russia loses its security council veto. If it refuses, a replacement UN to be formed, that actually IS fit for purpose. The replacement to have teeth. Very, very nasty teeth.
Where does the Ukraine/Republic Of China border go?
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.
Russia can gain nothing from their aggression and war crimes. Let it be a lesson to others
@Foxy this is probably turning out worse than the Russo-Japanese war. That at least was a very close run thing, with Japan effectively bankrupt, by the end of it. The Russian army gave a good account of itself in that war, but not in this one.
I'm assuming you're treating the Russian Navy separately there?
Christian fascist Nick Fuentes lays out his vision for America where contraception, fornication, homosexuality, and pornography are illegal and women can't go to school, or vote, and are burned at the stake for being witches: "We want to go back to the Middle Ages."
"Apart from the practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight without a Jewish state. We are no longer the Jews of the Maccabee period. A return to a nation in the political sense of the word would be equivalent to turning away from the spiritualization of our community which we owe to the genius of our prophets.”
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.
Unless, of course, the loss of Crimea led to a revolution in Russia and the coming to power of a more amenable regime.
The risk, however, is it would lead to a military coup led by an even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime.
Unlikely. As you pointed out. Possession of Crimea has been a consistent Russian priority.
Which one?
Unlikely that revolution would lead to a Russian regime more amenable to Ukraine holding Crimea for its strategic interest. (And would therefore leave Ukraine alone, which is its foremost objective)
Certainly I think it's less likely, and AIUI even Navalny (if he's still alive) thinks Crimea is Russian terra irredente.
Although I have to say it's a bold assumption that Russia would leave Ukraine alone even if it had Crimea. After all, the whole point of having it is to keep Ukraine firmly under Russian influence. And it didn't stop the invasion earlier this year anyway.
Therefore, as Ukraine would be much stronger and better situated by holding Crimea arguably it becomes more important in the event of longstanding military tension for it to hold Crimea.
Unless, of course, it decided to trade Crimea for Russia agreeing to Ukrainian NATO and EU membership...
Absolutely - Ukrainian NATO and EU membership, more precisely Ukraine doing what it wants on its own territory without interference - part of the exchange for Russia getting Crimea. Ukraine should demand a high price if they go for a Crimea deal (faint and mixed signals on that at the moment).
Antisemtism sadly rising in America now. Ye s interview with Alex Jones praising Hitler and talking about the Jews using pornography to destroy the gentiles caused the adls Greenblatt to be nearly in tears on MSNBC. Sad days
@Foxy this is probably turning out worse than the Russo-Japanese war. That at least was a very close run thing, with Japan effectively bankrupt, by the end of it. The Russian army gave a good account of itself in that war, but not in this one.
I'm assuming you're treating the Russian Navy separately there?
"Apart from the practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight without a Jewish state. We are no longer the Jews of the Maccabee period. A return to a nation in the political sense of the word would be equivalent to turning away from the spiritualization of our community which we owe to the genius of our prophets.”
Reasonably enough, the Jews decided they could not really count on the goodwill of others, without their own state.
Intderesting social observation piece in Graun suggesting that inheritance is now a socially explosive topic (which is an interesting point, regardless of one's politics). Something to be added to the to-do list of any Martian Anthropologist In London, evidently .
"Apart from the practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight without a Jewish state. We are no longer the Jews of the Maccabee period. A return to a nation in the political sense of the word would be equivalent to turning away from the spiritualization of our community which we owe to the genius of our prophets.”
Reasonably enough, the Jews decided they could not really count on the goodwill of others, without their own state.
Indeed, although he wrote this after the holocaust and fleeing the Nazis himself, too.
Aseem Malhotra saying top celebrities and journalists now refusing covid jab.
want to make it very clear that a number of high profile celebrities, journalists & broadcasters who come to me for medical advice have informed me they will not be having anymore covid vaccines (they know about the unprecedented harms) but are afraid to speak out publicly.
Aseem Malhotra saying top celebrities and journalists now refusing covid jab.
want to make it very clear that a number of high profile celebrities, journalists & broadcasters who come to me for medical advice have informed me they will not be having anymore covid vaccines (they know about the unprecedented harms) but are afraid to speak out publicly.
Contemptible quack. Flailing about in denial of his own possible role in his father's death, and fresh from telling people that the right diet would avoid covid, and now making crap up about heart issues and ignoring the fact that the actual measured numbers show he's talking bollocks.
New poster. Four posts. Straight onto antivaxxing.
Tell us - what are your views on homosexuality? And, of course, Ukraine?
Aseem Malhotra saying top celebrities and journalists now refusing covid jab.
want to make it very clear that a number of high profile celebrities, journalists & broadcasters who come to me for medical advice have informed me they will not be having anymore covid vaccines (they know about the unprecedented harms) but are afraid to speak out publicly.
If you want medical advice, high-profile celebrities are obviously the ones to ask. One wonders why they would go to Malhotra at all, rather than just asking one another. But perhaps they think (or he thinks) he qualifies as a fellow celebrity.
Aseem Malhotra saying top celebrities and journalists now refusing covid jab.
want to make it very clear that a number of high profile celebrities, journalists & broadcasters who come to me for medical advice have informed me they will not be having anymore covid vaccines (they know about the unprecedented harms) but are afraid to speak out publicly.
Contemptible quack. Flailing about in denial of his own possible role in his father's death, and fresh from telling people that the right diet would avoid covid, and now making crap up about heart issues and ignoring the fact that the actual measured numbers show he's talking bollocks.
New poster. Four posts. Straight onto antivaxxing.
Tell us - what are your views on homosexuality? And, of course, Ukraine?
This cancer specialist says covid boosters are now harming his patients. Whos advice do you take that of these top celebrities and doctors who know whats going on or the wisdom of the odd poster on pb. Hmmm
The evidence is clear that mRNA jabs are causal in heart attacks & cardiac arrests. I call on the CMO, Chris Whitty to acknowledge this fact publicly, suspend the roll out & order a full public inquiry into why we got this so very badly wrong
The evidence is clear that mRNA jabs are causal in heart attacks & cardiac arrests. I call on the CMO, Chris Whitty to acknowledge this fact publicly, suspend the roll out & order a full public inquiry into why we got this so very badly wrong
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.
- Russia goes back to 2014 boundaries
- An offer by NATO to have a 50 mile DMZ along its border with Russia (to include Ukraine, and when the regime falls there, Belarus)
- Russia to do the same.
- that border to have only passive observation systems - and minefields/tank traps
- Longer range systems (HIMARS + successors) to be placed further back, so that they cannot attack beyond the DMZ.
- Ukraine to have an "iron dome" across its entire airspace.
Russia can sell this as having forced a demilitarized buffer zone with NATO.
And gets fuck all else.
War crimes tribunals and a basis for reparations to continue on their own timelines.
Oh, and Russia loses its security council veto. If it refuses, a replacement UN to be formed, that actually IS fit for purpose. The replacement to have teeth. Very, very nasty teeth.
Where does the Ukraine/Republic Of China border go?
Sydney cardiologists now calling for an end to covid booster shots. It aint just Malhotra. BREAKING: Sydney cardiologist ( my friend Dr Ross Walker who has read my recent paper) calls for an end to mRNA booster shots Cardiologists KNOW there’s a major problem and more and more are speaking out
Note the word probably. No one can be sure. last Delta had them going up five to 30, others have them slipping backwards. So it’s a lot of nothing from Curtice, unlike my brave actuate calls. My conclusion is all the firms with their methodologies are struggling with Tories in 20s because of the amount of Tory shyness they must be getting.
Let’s deal with some facts that we can all agree on. The firms who boost other parties in their numbers have a lower Tory %, but tend to report lower Lab % too. But their low Tory figure is fed into the wiki table for average. Weeks ago I said to look for signs of Tory recovery look at movement in their %, not the gap/lead between parties, and I was right and being proved right. Labours surge included haircuts for Lib Dem and greens, not leads made up simply at expense of Tories, Labs Lizzy Bonus can unwind, the lead shrink, without Tories recovering much, and this is exactly what is happening, Labours Lizzy bonus is melting away already from its highs.
But are the Tories recovering? Does Labour going backwards mean Tories are recovering? The last Opinium they were on 28 - I predict 29 or 30 from the next one to prove yes, they are still bit by bit recovering. If it’s still 28 or lower, firstly the Lab lead could be shrinking without Tory recovery, as greens and Lib Dems grow their hair back. That’s a message for Tory’s who will point to smaller Lab leads as sign of Tory recovery, which it won’t be, they will be pig ignorant spinners. Secondly, if Tory lead has stalled, then why? I would suggest the Sunak government isn’t looking like enough of a change and fresh start from recent Tory government - they haven’t done the job of launching themselves as fresh approach, Sunak’s integrity, professionalism and accountability already looks tainted.
Other problems for the Tories, Sunak’s government publicly admitting Tories crashed the economy, publicly admitting there will be no growth they won’t budget for growth, and publicly admitting Tories broke the immigration system, is costing them those new votes Boris won to give them a landslide majority. Labour isn’t doing to them, the Tories are doing it to themselves.
Based on what happened last time, can we assume the growing reform figure votes Tory on Election Day? No HY we can’t. They Tories swallowed it last time based on promise, where’s that promise now? It’s more likely this is votes being spewed back out and lost through new feelings of despair, embarrassment and distrust.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
Alaska was $140m in 2021 money.
'Louisiana' Purchase - much of the Mid-West - was 15m USD in 1803 money ... 395m in 2022 money. Even better value.
The USA had some very shrewd deal-makers in the 19th century.
The alternative was that the USA would have effectively walked into it and annexed the territory anyway, so Napoleon sort of had to take any deal he got.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
Alaska was $140m in 2021 money.
'Louisiana' Purchase - much of the Mid-West - was 15m USD in 1803 money ... 395m in 2022 money. Even better value.
The USA had some very shrewd deal-makers in the 19th century.
It didn't do much deal making with the original residents in the 19th century. But then it had the means to take what it wanted (Custer aside).
Lib Dems have always had form for coming out of nowhere by working their socks off.
And my rule for progressive voters (If the view our of your window is leafy, vote Liberal. If it isn't, vote Labour) rather breaks down in Norfolk in December.
Apropos of nothing... Anyone else noticed how... One hates to say Russian Trolls... tend to turn up here on Saturdays?
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
Alaska was $140m in 2021 money.
'Louisiana' Purchase - much of the Mid-West - was 15m USD in 1803 money ... 395m in 2022 money. Even better value.
Which resulted in large numbers of Frenchmen being driven into a swamp. Which in turn resulted in a form of the blues played on the accordion. #TooHighAPrice
You sure? Wasn't that the refugees from Acadia (sort of Nova Scotia/Maine) who moved south when it became proper British? That wasn't part of the Louisiana Purchase.
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
Alaska was $140m in 2021 money.
'Louisiana' Purchase - much of the Mid-West - was 15m USD in 1803 money ... 395m in 2022 money. Even better value.
The USA had some very shrewd deal-makers in the 19th century.
AIR it was actually the French who made the offer. The Americans didn't even need to haggle.
Of course, at the time it was French influence/claims they're given up, as almost all the land was inhabited by First Nation peoples not French colonists. And the French couldn't keep it, due to the Royal Navy (heck, they couldn't even help their very valuable Carribean colonies) while the money could fund their land campaigns in Europe.
Didn’t Napoleon sell Louisiana as a geopolitical gambit: hoping it would create a long term rival to the ascendant power of England?
NB: I just reflexively turned to Alexa hoping for an eloquent informative explanatory confirmation of this, as you would get from ChatGPT
I didn’t get that from Alexa. I got a bit of Wiki
When ChatGPT is incorporated into Home Assistants, it will be quite the moment. I presume Amazon are on the case
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.
Obviously it has been a catastrophe for all concerned. War is like that. In purely financial terms though it is the best bang for buck in American history.
Alaska was $140m in 2021 money.
'Louisiana' Purchase - much of the Mid-West - was 15m USD in 1803 money ... 395m in 2022 money. Even better value.
The USA had some very shrewd deal-makers in the 19th century.
The alternative was that the USA would have effectively walked into it and annexed the territory anyway, so Napoleon sort of had to take any deal he got.
Not sure that was going to happen. They had a lot to work on as an new company - iirc the deal was done by the people on the ground and only then did they tell the president
Comments
The risk, however, is it would lead to a military coup led by an even more overtly Fascist and imperial regime.
1) We keep the Falklands and South Georgia
2) The British go home
3) We then have talks about… stuff
It would require Ukraine to be in a massively stronger position surely, and if at that point the dynamic changes. It's one reason I'm sceptical they can get to that point.
Unless you are thinking of - https://youtu.be/o23oBD8s1qw
It demonstrates what I said though - it was about fracturing western resolve by trying to get them to see it as a ceasefire opportunity, which plenty will have at least some domestic agitation for.
That wouldn't be a good look, and might in itself undermine Western support for Ukraine.
But equally, if the Ukrainians do get to invade Crimea you would have to assume the Russian army had collapsed so far there would be no way back for them anyway.
If it's possible I think that Russia losing territory as a result of its February invasion would be an important lesson that aggression is not rewarded. We're a long way from an unending bloodbath.
So they paid way over the odds…
On the former point, I'm not sure it is possible for anyone to be imperalist enough to prevent being supported by some 'anti-imperialists' on twitter.
All talk of compromises leading to a lasting peace settlement is delusional wishful thinking.
It's exactly as Johnson said back in February. Russia have to lose, and be seen to lose. It's not a nice job, but it has to be done.
Although I have to say it's a bold assumption that Russia would leave Ukraine alone even if it had Crimea. After all, the whole point of having it is to keep Ukraine firmly under Russian influence. And it didn't stop the invasion earlier this year anyway.
Therefore, as Ukraine would be much stronger and better situated by holding Crimea arguably it becomes more important in the event of longstanding military tension for it to hold Crimea.
Unless, of course, it decided to trade Crimea for Russia agreeing to Ukrainian NATO and EU membership...
In lieu of one of my usual posts which I'm told are as turgid and dull as a Pakistani test innings (too soon ?), a couple of thoughts on the afternoon's equine action down Esher way.
The Tingle Creek is a strong renewal - SHISHKIN should win this assuming he's the same horse he was last season and I think the race with ENERGUMENE at Ascot took much more out of him than was recognised at the time. EDWARDSTONE is the interesting one in opposition - is the ground too quick for him?
I'd be opposing JONBON in the Henry VIII. I thought as a hurdler he looked better over further on stiffer tracks and this real speed test might catch him out on only his second chasing run. BOOTHILL at 7/2 looks the better betting proposition.
Elsewhere on the card, I saw AUTHORISED SPEED win at Lingfield but he beat nothing and 4/11 is a stupid price though this is a poor a race as you'll see on a Saturday at Sandown. COQUELICOT is a sporting each way bet at 6s in the Mares handicap hurdle with the Honeyball team in such good form.
I quite like PLAYFUL SAINT who doesn't have many miles on the clock in the 2.20 and the London "National" ( in my view you shouldn't call it a National if it's less than four miles) looks another weak race. REVELS HILL is very short but he has the potential - I'll offer ECLAIR DE GUYE in receipt of 20 lbs from the favourite.
On your later point. No. Nor is it possible to be Nazi enough that some tankies won’t worship you for your anti-western stances.
https://www.thelaend.de/en/
I got an advert for doctors to go to Western Australia the other week but I fear that was a glitch in the algorithm.
- An offer by NATO to have a 50 mile DMZ along its border with Russia (to include Ukraine, and when the regime falls there, Belarus)
- Russia to do the same.
- that border to have only passive observation systems - and minefields/tank traps
- Longer range systems (HIMARS + successors) to be placed further back, so that they cannot attack beyond the DMZ.
- Ukraine to have an "iron dome" across its entire airspace.
Russia can sell this as having forced a demilitarized buffer zone with NATO.
And gets fuck all else.
War crimes tribunals and a basis for reparations to continue on their own timelines.
Oh, and Russia loses its security council veto. If it refuses, a replacement UN to be formed, that actually IS fit for purpose. The replacement to have teeth. Very, very nasty teeth.
Of course, at the time it was French influence/claims they're given up, as almost all the land was inhabited by First Nation peoples not French colonists. And the French couldn't keep it, due to the Royal Navy (heck, they couldn't even help their very valuable Carribean colonies) while the money could fund their land campaigns in Europe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-63834683
Peace seems further away than ever.
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1547655163568988160?s=20&t=TmtGUQZePMaz42cI9I2MEQ
"Apart from the practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight without a Jewish state. We are no longer the Jews of the Maccabee period. A return to a nation in the political sense of the word would be equivalent to turning away from the spiritualization of our community which we owe to the genius of our prophets.”
But first they need to put Crimea into play.
Intderesting social observation piece in Graun suggesting that inheritance is now a socially explosive topic (which is an interesting point, regardless of one's politics). Something to be added to the to-do list of any Martian Anthropologist In London, evidently .
want to make it very clear that a number of high profile celebrities, journalists & broadcasters who come to me for medical advice have informed me they will not be having anymore covid vaccines (they know about the unprecedented harms) but are afraid to speak out publicly.
3:37 PM · Dec 2, 2022
https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1598702833167380480?s=20&t=TmtGUQZePMaz42cI9I2MEQ
Flailing about in denial of his own possible role in his father's death, and fresh from telling people that the right diet would avoid covid, and now making crap up about heart issues and ignoring the fact that the actual measured numbers show he's talking bollocks.
New poster. Four posts. Straight onto antivaxxing.
Tell us - what are your views on homosexuality? And, of course, Ukraine?
https://twitter.com/JamesfWells/status/1597937853849534465?s=20&t=TmtGUQZePMaz42cI9I2MEQ
The evidence is clear that mRNA jabs are causal in heart attacks & cardiac arrests. I call on the CMO, Chris Whitty to acknowledge this fact publicly, suspend the roll out & order a full public inquiry into why we got this so very badly wrong
https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1598456733340520448?s=20&t=TmtGUQZePMaz42cI9I2MEQ
The evidence is clear that mRNA jabs are causal in heart attacks & cardiac arrests. I call on the CMO, Chris Whitty to acknowledge this fact publicly, suspend the roll out & order a full public inquiry into why we got this so very badly wrong
https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1598456733340520448?s=20&t=TmtGUQZePMaz42cI9I2MEQ
BREAKING: Sydney cardiologist ( my friend Dr Ross Walker who has read my recent paper) calls for an end to mRNA booster shots Cardiologists KNOW there’s a major problem and more and more are speaking out
https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1595828742940770311?s=20&t=TmtGUQZePMaz42cI9I2MEQ
Let’s deal with some facts that we can all agree on.
The firms who boost other parties in their numbers have a lower Tory %, but tend to report lower Lab % too. But their low Tory figure is fed into the wiki table for average.
Weeks ago I said to look for signs of Tory recovery look at movement in their %, not the gap/lead between parties, and I was right and being proved right. Labours surge included haircuts for Lib Dem and greens, not leads made up simply at expense of Tories, Labs Lizzy Bonus can unwind, the lead shrink, without Tories recovering much, and this is exactly what is happening, Labours Lizzy bonus is melting away already from its highs.
But are the Tories recovering? Does Labour going backwards mean Tories are recovering? The last Opinium they were on 28 - I predict 29 or 30 from the next one to prove yes, they are still bit by bit recovering.
If it’s still 28 or lower, firstly the Lab lead could be shrinking without Tory recovery, as greens and Lib Dems grow their hair back. That’s a message for Tory’s who will point to smaller Lab leads as sign of Tory recovery, which it won’t be, they will be pig ignorant spinners. Secondly, if Tory lead has stalled, then why? I would suggest the Sunak government isn’t looking like enough of a change and fresh start from recent Tory government - they haven’t done the job of launching themselves as fresh approach, Sunak’s integrity, professionalism and accountability already looks tainted.
Other problems for the Tories, Sunak’s government publicly admitting Tories crashed the economy, publicly admitting there will be no growth they won’t budget for growth, and publicly admitting Tories broke the immigration system, is costing them those new votes Boris won to give them a landslide majority. Labour isn’t doing to them, the Tories are doing it to themselves.
Based on what happened last time, can we assume the growing reform figure votes Tory on Election Day? No HY we can’t. They Tories swallowed it last time based on promise, where’s that promise now? It’s more likely this is votes being spewed back out and lost through new feelings of despair, embarrassment and distrust.
Gaywood North and Central (Norfolk)
LDEM: 35.6% (+28.5)
LAB: 34.8% (+1.3)
CON: 25.0% (-31.0)
GRN: 4.5% (+4.5)
Votes cast: 1,022
And my rule for progressive voters (If the view our of your window is leafy, vote Liberal. If it isn't, vote Labour) rather breaks down in Norfolk in December.
Apropos of nothing... Anyone else noticed how... One hates to say Russian Trolls... tend to turn up here on Saturdays?
Acadian = Cajun after a century or two ...
NB: I just reflexively turned to Alexa hoping for an eloquent informative explanatory confirmation of this, as you would get from ChatGPT
I didn’t get that from Alexa. I got a bit of Wiki
When ChatGPT is incorporated into Home Assistants, it will be quite the moment. I presume Amazon are on the case