The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
I wonder what Biden and Scholz said on the subject in their recent conversation.
Meghan Markle is now less popular than Queen Camilla in America, even after Prince Harry has made searing criticisms of his stepmother, according to exclusive polling for Newsweek.
"The Duchess of Sussex had a net approval rating of -13 and Camilla is at -8 following a survey of 2,000 eligible U.S. voters by Redfield & Wilton on Monday. The data was collected six days after the publication of Prince Harry's memoir, Spare.
The Duke of Sussex was not far behind, at -7, after his book publicity tour and the couple's recent Netflix docuseries, Harry & Meghan, appeared to collapse their U.S. popularity.
As recently as December 5, Harry was at +38 and Meghan at +23, far outstripping Camilla, who was at -2, according to Redfield & Wilton's polling."
Dunno if it's any of their business though.
They’ve broken a pretty basic human law. Do not attack your own family. Especially so, if your granny is a recently dead and near-universally admired woman
And above all, don’t do it for money and fame. UGH
"They’ve broken a pretty basic human law. Do not attack your own family." Well, exactly. This is imv literally a tragedy: Agamemnon, Hamlet, bit of Oedipus. The eternal tragic question; what do you do when [your perception is] your mum kills your dad, or in this case vice versa? The money and fame is by products.
it’s not a by-product for HER. It is the essence. She wants the fame and attention. She’s got it. But it’s not quite panning out how she hoped
Where does it go from here? If they have any sense they will stop. Keep their millions. Be nice. Do charity. Etc
If they continue they could end up two of the most hated people in the English speaking world. it will look like a mad selfish vendetta
People are going to hate them anyway. They might as well get paid for it.
Realistically, Ukraine needs Leopards, which are available in numbers from several European sources (which would also be able to help with training and maintenance), not several different new systems to grapple with.
That applies also to the Abrams - either the US sends a load of them, or they are an unnecessary complication.
We've already had one symbolic gesture with the UK's Challengers.
Meghan Markle is now less popular than Queen Camilla in America, even after Prince Harry has made searing criticisms of his stepmother, according to exclusive polling for Newsweek.
"The Duchess of Sussex had a net approval rating of -13 and Camilla is at -8 following a survey of 2,000 eligible U.S. voters by Redfield & Wilton on Monday. The data was collected six days after the publication of Prince Harry's memoir, Spare.
The Duke of Sussex was not far behind, at -7, after his book publicity tour and the couple's recent Netflix docuseries, Harry & Meghan, appeared to collapse their U.S. popularity.
As recently as December 5, Harry was at +38 and Meghan at +23, far outstripping Camilla, who was at -2, according to Redfield & Wilton's polling."
Dunno if it's any of their business though.
They’ve broken a pretty basic human law. Do not attack your own family. Especially so, if your granny is a recently dead and near-universally admired woman
And above all, don’t do it for money and fame. UGH
"They’ve broken a pretty basic human law. Do not attack your own family." Well, exactly. This is imv literally a tragedy: Agamemnon, Hamlet, bit of Oedipus. The eternal tragic question; what do you do when [your perception is] your mum kills your dad, or in this case vice versa? The money and fame is by products.
it’s not a by-product for HER. It is the essence. She wants the fame and attention. She’s got it. But it’s not quite panning out how she hoped
Where does it go from here? If they have any sense they will stop. Keep their millions. Be nice. Do charity. Etc
If they continue they could end up two of the most hated people in the English speaking world. it will look like a mad selfish vendetta
People are going to hate them anyway. They might as well get paid for it.
That was by no means guaranteed. I am pretty sure Markle’s ambition was to end up as a martyr of racism and snobbery, and to ride a wave of sympathy to $200m and universal love
Being deeply unpopular does not make for successful Netflix contracts
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
This is not the impression I get from the public statements of our political leaders. Just today Ben Wallace, at a press conference with his Estonian counterpart, has been quoted by the Guardian as saying:
It is now time to turn the momentum that Ukrainians have achieved, and to make sure Russia “understands that the purpose now is to push them back out of Ukraine” and to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty, he says.
The following comment, over on ARRSE, made me laugh:
"When we send the Challengers we should give them all names of members of the Royal Family. Then we can send an extra one to use for spares and call it Harry."
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
This is not the impression I get from the public statements of our political leaders. Just today Ben Wallace, at a press conference with his Estonian counterpart, has been quoted by the Guardian as saying:
It is now time to turn the momentum that Ukrainians have achieved, and to make sure Russia “understands that the purpose now is to push them back out of Ukraine” and to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty, he says.
The following comment, over on ARRSE, made me laugh:
"When we send the Challengers we should give them all names of members of the Royal Family. Then we can send an extra one to use for spares and call it Harry."
Has anybody got a spare copy of Harry's book?
Worth keeping incase there's another loo roll shortage.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
I don't mind it. Needs to be mixed with muesli or granola though. That deals with the excess milk issue too.
But I have yoghurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast in the week and scrambled egg on toast at the weekend.
So, your method is to mix other things in to hide the Weetabix? And then eat something else entirely?
That works for me!
Weetabix works best when smushed down and cooked in the manner of porridge.
The washing up requires effort though.
Ah, but is it still worse than porridge cooked in the manner of porridge?
Thanks for the efforts/advice, but I'm going to be tricky to convert, I think
The following comment, over on ARRSE, made me laugh:
"When we send the Challengers we should give them all names of members of the Royal Family. Then we can send an extra one to use for spares and call it Harry."
Has anybody got a spare copy of Harry's book?
I don't have a Spare. Certainly not a spare Spare. Although if I did have a Spare and it sent me spare then I'd probably consider the Spare spare.
Realistically, Ukraine needs Leopards, which are available in numbers from several European sources (which would also be able to help with training and maintenance), not several different new systems to grapple with.
That applies also to the Abrams - either the US sends a load of them, or they are an unnecessary complication.
We've already had one symbolic gesture with the UK's Challengers.
If the UK "gesture" delivers Ukraine Leopards in theatre, it will have been a significant moving of the pieces on the board. Russia has, for the most part, spent nearly a year moving its available offensive weaponry back decades. What it is facing might not yet be NATO's finest, but it is still vastly superior.
A concerted push to re-supply Ukraine with items equivalent in potency to HIMARS must be the worst nightmare of Russian generals.
. . . meanwhile back at the ranch, the latest smear against good name of US Rep. George Santos (R-Amityville Horror) by notorious Woke media outlet . . .
NY Post - George Santos allegedly stole $3K in donations for veteran’s dying service dog: report
Disgraced Rep. George Santos allegedly conned a disabled, homeless veteran out of thousands of dollars donated to save the man’s dying service dog, according to a stomach-turning report. . . .
The veteran, Richard Osthoff, told the local news site Patch that he met Santos, who introduced himself as Anthony Devolder, during a tough time in his life in May 2016.
Osthoff, who was honorably discharged from the Navy in 2002, was living in a tent on the side of Route 9 in Howell, New Jersey, with his beloved service dog Sapphire at the time, Patch reported.
Sapphire was suffering from a life-threatening stomach tumor that was growing by the day and surgery to remove the tumor would cost $3,000, according to the vet’s estimate, Osthoff said.
The veteran, who couldn’t afford the surgery, said a veterinary technician took him aside and offered assistance via a pet charity called Friends of Pets United run by Anthony Devolder, an alias used by Santos in the past.
Devolder set up a GoFundMe to raise funds for Sapphire and once it hit its goal of $3,000, he closed and deleted the fundraising page and became hard to reach before he disappeared altogether, Osthoff told Patch. . . .
His account was corroborated by fellow veteran and retired New Jersey police Sgt. Michael Boll, who told Patch that when he heard what happened, he tried to help Osthoff by reaching out to Santos.
“I contacted [Santos] and told him, ‘You’re messing with a veteran,’ and that he needed to give back the money or use it to get Osthoff another dog,” Boll said. “He was totally uncooperative on the phone.” . . .
Santos claimed that he instead donated the $3,000 to other dogs in need because Sapphire wasn’t a candidate for surgery and Osthoff didn’t do things his way, according to a text exchange viewed by Patch.
After that, Osthoff was never able to reach Santos again.
There are no official records of Santos’ animal charity “Friends of Pets United” being registered as a tax-exempt organization or charity, according to the New York Times.
Another woman told the paper that she was scammed by the animal rescue group as well.
She was supposed to be the beneficiary of a 2017 fundraising event in which Santos charged $50 per person, but never received any of the funds. She told the Times that Santos offered excuse after excuse when asked about the funding. . . .
Santos denied even knowing Osthoff when asked about the veteran’s claims.
“Fake,” the embattled lawmaker texted Semafor. “No clue who this is.”
The rail delivery group has made a best and final offer to the RMT including a pay rise of 9% over 2 years
They will reject that
Sure, some people are still being mightily inconvenienced, but the UK is getting used to a fucked up rail service - and is working around it.
Rail unions are going to have go all in for complete shutdown - or start thinking about this offer. Rail driver salaries are already at levels unlikely to garner widespread support.
The following comment, over on ARRSE, made me laugh:
"When we send the Challengers we should give them all names of members of the Royal Family. Then we can send an extra one to use for spares and call it Harry."
Has anybody got a spare copy of Harry's book?
Worth keeping incase there's another loo roll shortage.
Careful. Suggesting covering Meghan in **** got Jeremy Clarkson into hot water.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
We can expect to see some serious weakening of the Russian economy in 2023. The areas of ineffectiveness of 2022's sanctions has been observed - and will be countered.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
I hadn't realised that the Caesar artillery being sent by Denmark is all of their 155mm artillery. Their only remaining artillery is some vehicle-mounted mortars.
I think we're seeing a big shift this week with a lot more active service hardware being sent to Ukraine. People had wondered what countries would do once they'd sent all their obsolete warehoused equipment, and I reckon we have the answer. They're now sending their best kit.
Realistically, Ukraine needs Leopards, which are available in numbers from several European sources (which would also be able to help with training and maintenance), not several different new systems to grapple with.
That applies also to the Abrams - either the US sends a load of them, or they are an unnecessary complication.
We've already had one symbolic gesture with the UK's Challengers.
If the UK "gesture" delivers Ukraine Leopards in theatre, it will have been a significant moving of the pieces on the board. Russia has, for the most part, spent nearly a year moving its available offensive weaponry back decades. What it is facing might not yet be NATO's finest, but it is still vastly superior.
A concerted push to re-supply Ukraine with items equivalent in potency to HIMARS must be the worst nightmare of Russian generals.
I have a feeling that if the first batch work out, the rest may be sent, to kill the Challenger 3 program and try and get a brand new tank here.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
I don't mind it. Needs to be mixed with muesli or granola though. That deals with the excess milk issue too.
But I have yoghurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast in the week and scrambled egg on toast at the weekend.
So, your method is to mix other things in to hide the Weetabix? And then eat something else entirely?
That works for me!
Weetabix works best when smushed down and cooked in the manner of porridge.
The washing up requires effort though.
Ah, but is it still worse than porridge cooked in the manner of porridge?
Thanks for the efforts/advice, but I'm going to be tricky to convert, I think
It's possible to forget the milk and just treat it as a biscuit.
Realistically, Ukraine needs Leopards, which are available in numbers from several European sources (which would also be able to help with training and maintenance), not several different new systems to grapple with.
That applies also to the Abrams - either the US sends a load of them, or they are an unnecessary complication.
We've already had one symbolic gesture with the UK's Challengers.
If the UK "gesture" delivers Ukraine Leopards in theatre, it will have been a significant moving of the pieces on the board. Russia has, for the most part, spent nearly a year moving its available offensive weaponry back decades. What it is facing might not yet be NATO's finest, but it is still vastly superior.
A concerted push to re-supply Ukraine with items equivalent in potency to HIMARS must be the worst nightmare of Russian generals.
I have a feeling that if the first batch work out, the rest may be sent, to kill the Challenger 3 program and try and get a brand new tank here.
Depends if they ever get a chance to perform in battle. I suspect they will be based between Kyiv and the Belorussian border, to deter that possible but unlikely push from the north.
That in itself might free up a larger contingent of Ukrainian troops held in reserve for that purpose.
Realistically, Ukraine needs Leopards, which are available in numbers from several European sources (which would also be able to help with training and maintenance), not several different new systems to grapple with.
That applies also to the Abrams - either the US sends a load of them, or they are an unnecessary complication.
We've already had one symbolic gesture with the UK's Challengers.
If the UK "gesture" delivers Ukraine Leopards in theatre, it will have been a significant moving of the pieces on the board. Russia has, for the most part, spent nearly a year moving its available offensive weaponry back decades. What it is facing might not yet be NATO's finest, but it is still vastly superior.
A concerted push to re-supply Ukraine with items equivalent in potency to HIMARS must be the worst nightmare of Russian generals.
I have a feeling that if the first batch work out, the rest may be sent, to kill the Challenger 3 program and try and get a brand new tank here.
Depends if they ever get a chance to perform in battle. I suspect they will be based between Kyiv and the Belorussian border, to deter that possible but unlikely push from the north.
The Ukrainians haven't been shy about sending *anything* into battle.
Have you seen the cavalry charges in dune buggies with a 0.5 cal?
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Realistically, Ukraine needs Leopards, which are available in numbers from several European sources (which would also be able to help with training and maintenance), not several different new systems to grapple with.
That applies also to the Abrams - either the US sends a load of them, or they are an unnecessary complication.
We've already had one symbolic gesture with the UK's Challengers.
If the UK "gesture" delivers Ukraine Leopards in theatre, it will have been a significant moving of the pieces on the board. Russia has, for the most part, spent nearly a year moving its available offensive weaponry back decades. What it is facing might not yet be NATO's finest, but it is still vastly superior.
A concerted push to re-supply Ukraine with items equivalent in potency to HIMARS must be the worst nightmare of Russian generals.
I have a feeling that if the first batch work out, the rest may be sent, to kill the Challenger 3 program and try and get a brand new tank here.
Are the Americans pushing us to buy one of theirs off the shelf?
Or perhaps encourage the Germans with an order for a new Leopard 3's/KF51s.
Realistically, Ukraine needs Leopards, which are available in numbers from several European sources (which would also be able to help with training and maintenance), not several different new systems to grapple with.
That applies also to the Abrams - either the US sends a load of them, or they are an unnecessary complication.
We've already had one symbolic gesture with the UK's Challengers.
If the UK "gesture" delivers Ukraine Leopards in theatre, it will have been a significant moving of the pieces on the board. Russia has, for the most part, spent nearly a year moving its available offensive weaponry back decades. What it is facing might not yet be NATO's finest, but it is still vastly superior.
A concerted push to re-supply Ukraine with items equivalent in potency to HIMARS must be the worst nightmare of Russian generals.
I have a feeling that if the first batch work out, the rest may be sent, to kill the Challenger 3 program and try and get a brand new tank here.
Are the Americans pushing us to buy one of theirs off the shelf?
Or perhaps encourage the Germans with an order for a new Leopard 3's
Everyone would like to sell us tanks.
The main problem is the Airmobile types who think anything that can't fit in a C-130 is useless.
Apart from the small fact that yes, you can airlift in a handful of vehicles. Which no-one on earth (except possibly the Americans) could support with airlift.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Of course this is in Europe's interest and the interest of those who believe in liberal democracy, which has shown time and time again to be the system of government that creates the best quality of life (in terms of both freedom to live and material standards) in human history.
The end conclusion is very clear to anyone that doesn't have a massive anti-American chip on their shoulder. Russia is forced to withdraw because it can no longer sustain the invasion. This has already happened three times in pieces. Firstly Russian forces had to withdrew from around Kiev. Then there was a second withdrawal from Kherson province. Then from Kharkiv. Each time is associated with a major round of missile strikes so the humiliation of the Russian army is not headline news, but you have to be blind not to see it. It will keep on happening until we are back to the 1991 borders.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
. . . more on Donald Trump's political love child, George Santos
NYT ($) - George Santos’s Mother Was Not in New York on 9/11, Records Show Mr. Santos, who has come under intense criticism for fabricating large portions of his life story, had claimed she had been in the South Tower when it was struck.
Representative George Santos of New York has said consistently that his mother, Fatima Devolder, was working at her office in the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Even as he altered his official biography to remove other false claims, Mr. Santos’s account of ties to the tragedy remained.
But official immigration documents reviewed by The New York Times on Wednesday directly contradict that claim, too.
In an application for a visa to enter the United States filed in 2003, Ms. Devolder said that she had left the country for Brazil in June 1999 and had not returned since. In earlier paperwork filed in June 2001, three months before the attacks, Ms. Devolder said that she had been unable to return to the United States since 1999 because her green card had been stolen in Brazil.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Santos, who represents parts of Queens and Long Island, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Even as Mr. Santos’s web of falsehoods has angered his constituents and politicians from both sides of the aisle, lying about a connection to Sept. 11 has unique resonances in New York. But the claim that Mr. Santos’s mother witnessed the Sept. 11 attacks, which remained on his campaign website on Wednesday evening, marks the third notable occasion that Mr. Santos has appeared to falsely link himself to notorious tragedies.
In an interview after his election, Mr. Santos, who is gay, said that a company he had worked for “lost four employees” at the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando in June 2016. The Times reviewed news coverage and obituaries and found no evidence that could support the claim.
Mr. Santos, 34, has also said that his mother’s parents were Jewish refugees who fled persecution in Ukraine and “survived the Holocaust.” Mr. Santos has said that he grew up hearing that his maternal grandparents were Jewish refugees who came to Brazil. But in immigration documents filed with the State Department, Ms. Devolder, who died in 2016, said that both of her parents were born in Brazil. . . . .
Mr. Santos had also previously said that his mother worked her way up to become “the first female executive at a major financial institution.” But on immigration documents, she described herself as a housekeeper and home aide. . . .
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
I don't mind it. Needs to be mixed with muesli or granola though. That deals with the excess milk issue too.
But I have yoghurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast in the week and scrambled egg on toast at the weekend.
So, your method is to mix other things in to hide the Weetabix? And then eat something else entirely?
That works for me!
Weetabix works best when smushed down and cooked in the manner of porridge.
The washing up requires effort though.
Ah, but is it still worse than porridge cooked in the manner of porridge?
Thanks for the efforts/advice, but I'm going to be tricky to convert, I think
It's possible to forget the milk and just treat it as a biscuit.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Indeed and some who study humanities do actually want to become humanities academics or school teachers, work in museums, in the arts and culture not in the corporate field and make more practical use of their degree.
Given AI is allegedly coming for accounting, middle management jobs etc It is not as if other fields are much safer either. Indeed if anything the more creative the job the less AI vulnerable it is
Realistically, Ukraine needs Leopards, which are available in numbers from several European sources (which would also be able to help with training and maintenance), not several different new systems to grapple with.
That applies also to the Abrams - either the US sends a load of them, or they are an unnecessary complication.
We've already had one symbolic gesture with the UK's Challengers.
If the UK "gesture" delivers Ukraine Leopards in theatre, it will have been a significant moving of the pieces on the board. Russia has, for the most part, spent nearly a year moving its available offensive weaponry back decades. What it is facing might not yet be NATO's finest, but it is still vastly superior.
A concerted push to re-supply Ukraine with items equivalent in potency to HIMARS must be the worst nightmare of Russian generals.
I have a feeling that if the first batch work out, the rest may be sent, to kill the Challenger 3 program and try and get a brand new tank here.
Depends if they ever get a chance to perform in battle. I suspect they will be based between Kyiv and the Belorussian border, to deter that possible but unlikely push from the north.
That in itself might free up a larger contingent of Ukrainian troops held in reserve for that purpose.
That's my view: they'll use them as a squad to work together, freeing up other tanks to deter Russia in the east. That may also give the crew more non-combat time to train on the different tank.
Realistically, Ukraine needs Leopards, which are available in numbers from several European sources (which would also be able to help with training and maintenance), not several different new systems to grapple with.
That applies also to the Abrams - either the US sends a load of them, or they are an unnecessary complication.
We've already had one symbolic gesture with the UK's Challengers.
If the UK "gesture" delivers Ukraine Leopards in theatre, it will have been a significant moving of the pieces on the board. Russia has, for the most part, spent nearly a year moving its available offensive weaponry back decades. What it is facing might not yet be NATO's finest, but it is still vastly superior.
A concerted push to re-supply Ukraine with items equivalent in potency to HIMARS must be the worst nightmare of Russian generals.
I have a feeling that if the first batch work out, the rest may be sent, to kill the Challenger 3 program and try and get a brand new tank here.
Are the Americans pushing us to buy one of theirs off the shelf?
Or perhaps encourage the Germans with an order for a new Leopard 3's/KF51s.
Everyone's trying to sell stuff.
If we're not going to go ahead with Challenger 3 (sensible), then a licensing deal to build the Korean improved K2 tank is another option - and almost certainly a better deal in terms of UK manufacturing.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Your assessment is based on what I believe to be several false premises. Unreliable renewables bake in fossil fuel use for the foreseeable - I don't know which shiny new technology is getting you excited about 'the end of the fossil fuel era', but what's been shared on here so far has not withstood any scrutiny. These include batteries, hydrogen, interconnectors with the continent, etc.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Yet in America universities still teach some humanities to at least first year students in other disciplines, do they not? A situation encountered in British fiction rarely - the only example [edited] I can think of is the polytechnic in the Tom Sharpe novels where Henry Wilt teaches butchers' apprentices Eng Lit in between their meat processing and food hygiene sessions.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Your assessment is based on what I believe to be several false premises. Unreliable renewables bake in fossil fuel use for the foreseeable - I don't know which shiny new technology is getting you excited about 'the end of the fossil fuel era', but what's been shared on here so far has not withstood any scrutiny. These include batteries, hydrogen, interconnectors with the continent, etc.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Humans are going to use up all the extractable fossil fuels. It's a question of over what length of time.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Yet in America universities still teach some humanities to at least first year students in other disciplines, do they not? A situation encountered in British fiction rarely - the only example I can think of is the polytechnic in which Henry Wilt teaches butchers' apprentices Eng Lit in the Tom Sharpe novels in between their meat processing and food hygiene sessions.
Aiui the American major/minor system often mandates a minor in the other half of the arts/science divide, although it probably depends on the institution.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Of course this is in Europe's interest and the interest of those who believe in liberal democracy, which has shown time and time again to be the system of government that creates the best quality of life (in terms of both freedom to live and material standards) in human history.
The end conclusion is very clear to anyone that doesn't have a massive anti-American chip on their shoulder. Russia is forced to withdraw because it can no longer sustain the invasion. This has already happened three times in pieces. Firstly Russian forces had to withdrew from around Kiev. Then there was a second withdrawal from Kherson province. Then from Kharkiv. Each time is associated with a major round of missile strikes so the humiliation of the Russian army is not headline news, but you have to be blind not to see it. It will keep on happening until we are back to the 1991 borders.
I love Americans. I oppose American political control over the UK in the same way that I would oppose Mexican, French, Russian, or Nigerian control over the UK (and have previously opposed EU control). I want to live in a sovereign democracy. It's a position that I am sure Americans would endorse, given that they fought a war of independence against British control over them.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Your assessment is based on what I believe to be several false premises. Unreliable renewables bake in fossil fuel use for the foreseeable - I don't know which shiny new technology is getting you excited about 'the end of the fossil fuel era', but what's been shared on here so far has not withstood any scrutiny. These include batteries, hydrogen, interconnectors with the continent, etc.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Yes, we will still need gas for a while - possibly a long while. But it's the fact that we will need less (as long as we can store it), and can buy it elsewhere via LNG ships etc. Russia has proven itself to be a massively unreliable supplier, and many of their customers will not want to put themselves in this position again when Russia decides to go for Ukraine again. Or Estonia. Or Poland.
They've used gas as a weapon. Many countries will be very hesitant to load that weapon again.
China and India are *not* 'guzzling' Russian gas at the moment - because there's only a tiny pipeline to them from Russia, and not one from Russia's western gas fields. And Russia has very limited LNG export facilities - and they're expensive to make. Worse, Russia's relative lack of year-round ice-free coastline is also problematic. To give you an idea, a new pipeline to China is expected to be completed *this decade*. These projects have long-timescales and are massively expensive.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Your assessment is based on what I believe to be several false premises. Unreliable renewables bake in fossil fuel use for the foreseeable - I don't know which shiny new technology is getting you excited about 'the end of the fossil fuel era', but what's been shared on here so far has not withstood any scrutiny. These include batteries, hydrogen, interconnectors with the continent, etc.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Humans are going to use up all the extractable fossil fuels. It's a question of over what length of time.
We will find energy forms hitherto unimaginable. We just won't do it by deliberate economical self harm. It's like imposing the dark ages.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Of course this is in Europe's interest and the interest of those who believe in liberal democracy, which has shown time and time again to be the system of government that creates the best quality of life (in terms of both freedom to live and material standards) in human history.
The end conclusion is very clear to anyone that doesn't have a massive anti-American chip on their shoulder. Russia is forced to withdraw because it can no longer sustain the invasion. This has already happened three times in pieces. Firstly Russian forces had to withdrew from around Kiev. Then there was a second withdrawal from Kherson province. Then from Kharkiv. Each time is associated with a major round of missile strikes so the humiliation of the Russian army is not headline news, but you have to be blind not to see it. It will keep on happening until we are back to the 1991 borders.
I love Americans. I oppose American political control over the UK in the same way that I would oppose Mexican, French, Russian, or Nigerian control over the UK (and have previously opposed EU control). I want to live in a sovereign democracy. It's a position that I am sure Americans would endorse, given that they fought a war of independence against British control over them.
On supplying Leopard 2 tanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Poland’s PM Mateusz Morawiecki said: “Consent is of secondary importance here. We will either obtain this consent quickly, or we will do the right thing ourselves.”"
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Indeed and some who study humanities do actually want to become humanities academics or school teachers, work in museums, in the arts and culture not in the corporate field and make more practical use of their degree.
Given AI is allegedly coming for accounting, middle management jobs etc It is not as if other fields are much safer either. Indeed if anything the more creative the job the less AI vulnerable it is
Accounting has been computerised since the 1980s. Now bookkeepers type numbers into spreadsheets rather than write them into ledgers. Some of them are outsourced to foreign climes. It is automation and outsourcing that threatens these jobs, not AI (especially if ChatGPT does not know the law is different between California and Delaware, let alone London and Edinburgh).
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Your assessment is based on what I believe to be several false premises. Unreliable renewables bake in fossil fuel use for the foreseeable - I don't know which shiny new technology is getting you excited about 'the end of the fossil fuel era', but what's been shared on here so far has not withstood any scrutiny. These include batteries, hydrogen, interconnectors with the continent, etc.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Humans are going to use up all the extractable fossil fuels. It's a question of over what length of time.
If we do that and fail to capture the CO2 that is released, then the ice caps will, slowly* but surely, melt entirely, raising the sea level by around 60m. The UK, if it still exists as a political entity, will become an archipelago.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
Is there not a danger of the latest NATO technology falling into Russian hands if lost on the battlefield? This is less likely if part of an overwhelming force rather than as just another pawn in a war of attrition. The news this week suggests a significant change of tempo.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
Is there not a danger of the latest NATO technology falling into Russian hands if lost on the battlefield? This is less likely if part of an overwhelming force rather than as just another pawn in a war of attrition. The news this week suggests a significant change of tempo.
More concern of that with things like missiles IMO rather than tanks. And it's relatively easy to send 'older' types of tanks - as the US is allegedly considering with Abrams, and is doing with other kit they're sending. Which makes some sense.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
This is not great marketing for the Abrams, so probably not in the running for our Challenger replacement.
U.S. prepping major military package for Ukraine Friday’s announcement is expected to include Stryker vehicles, but not tanks. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18/major-military-package-ukraine-russia-00078331 ...The reluctance is due to the logistical and maintenance challenges of the tanks, and not over concern that their transfer could escalate the conflict, one of the U.S. officials said. This person noted that the U.S. has helped Ukraine obtain Soviet-era tanks and supports the British decision to send around a dozen of its Challenger 2 tanks.
The package will likely include a number of Strykers, an eight-wheeled armored fighting vehicle built by General Dynamics Land Systems, as well as ground-launched Small Diameter Bombs, which have a range of roughly 100 miles, two of the people said. POLITICO first reported last week that the Pentagon was considering sending Strykers in the upcoming tranche of aid. Reuters first reported that Boeing-made Small Diameter Bombs were under discussion...
Andy Murray is playing the fifth set at gone 3am in Australia. Both players look knackered.
Great for TV, can't think of any other sport that does this?
Tennis has a particularly perfect scoring system.
Five and a half hours play and no tea breaks. It's just not cricket.
Good thinking of Murray to avoid the back to back fifth set tie break. Should keep him fresher for the next round.
Andy Murray has won after being two sets down. If this were December he'd be a good shout for SPotY but it isn't and he will probably lose in the next round from sheer exhaustion.
The BBC has a nice story about Sunak's latest photo opportunity, which involved him removing his seatbelt so he could be filmed breaking the law. It was an "error of judgment", apparently.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Yes I understood it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a bit beneath you.
"Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should." Is fair comment as far as it goes.
But, for example, claiming Sweden's announcement today "shames" Germany does seem a bit unbalanced to me.
What specifically do you find unbalanced in my position?
Well, the fact you agreed with my position above "is fair comment as far as it goes", yet you seem to think Germany is above criticism on this matter.
Germany sees itself as a leader in Europe. It often acts as if it is a leader in Europe. Yet when it comes to a place where real leadership is needed, they're all over the place, and worse, preventing others from doing the right thing.
What on earth makes you think that I "think Germany is above criticism on this matter"? But I prefer criticism that is informed and thoughtful rather than just catharsis.
Because I've offered mild criticism of Germany (and I *think* politely to Germany), and you seem to have taken a lot of offence at that criticism.
I'd hope my replies show that my criticism is informed and thoughtful, even if you disagree with it. I think I've answered the questions you've asked?
OK I've had a quick look and I really can't find this taking "a lot of offence" you refer to. Perhaps mild annoyance at perceived inconsistencies and bias, which may well be illusory. I also have not said a single word in defence of Germany's policies, let alone suggested it is above criticism.
I think expecting Germany to show leadership in military matter is unrealistic, for now.
You may note I've not gone on a xenophobic rant about Germany. I've not called them rude words. I've not belittled them. You seem to agree with much of what I've said, but you seem to think my position is 'unbalanced'. So how do you balance it? How do you balance Germany refusing to allow other countries to send Leopard 2 tanks?
As for the last line above, why is it 'unrealistic' ? Is not what Russia's doing in Ukraine wrong? Does it not pose a military, political and financial threat to Europe and the EU? Is not Germany the biggest country (in terms of GDP) in the EU? Do they not like to take leadership in other matters?
I'd also argue that the last line you wrote above *is* a defence of Germany's policies.
Germany has been a democratic republic for more than 70 years. At what point can we expect them to pull their weight in terms of standing up for European democracy? And I mean committing militarily, not just giving lip service.
France also keeps of trying to give Russia an out with gains from their aggression. The reality is that of the major European powers, the UK is the best European when it comes to what truly matters.
I will defend Macron a little on this. Yes, he was talking to Putin and Russia. Yes, he was negotiating. Yes, I did think that was wrong at the time.
But one little thing changed my mind: the video of the conversation between Macron and Zelenskyy on the first day of the war. AFAICR Zelesnkyy asked Macron to talk to Putin (and I'm guessing that wasn't the first time he'd done that role). We needed (and probably still do need) someone big talking to Russia.
Just not *for* Russia.
Of the Big 3 European countries, the UK has done the most (in material help), and both France and Germany have lagged in different ways. It has also been a steadfast friend to Ukraine from the very beginning, and our backbone may have been absolutely essential at getting others on board.
With that said, France and Germany are far from the worst offenders as far as lack of support to Ukraine goes. Italy actually went on purchasing Russian gas for far longer than Germany, and has given almost no military aid to Ukraine, and somehow manage to avoid getting any approbation. (One could be equally harsh about Japan, which used the war to buy lots of cheap Russian LNG.)
And none of us have done quite as much we might have done. Estonia and Poland's contributions - relative to the size of their economies - are far greater than ours.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
But you're not looking at what has happened you're inventing a completely new scenario. Where is your evidence that Germany would provide no tanks if the US did?
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Yes I understood it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a bit beneath you.
"Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should." Is fair comment as far as it goes.
But, for example, claiming Sweden's announcement today "shames" Germany does seem a bit unbalanced to me.
What specifically do you find unbalanced in my position?
Well, the fact you agreed with my position above "is fair comment as far as it goes", yet you seem to think Germany is above criticism on this matter.
Germany sees itself as a leader in Europe. It often acts as if it is a leader in Europe. Yet when it comes to a place where real leadership is needed, they're all over the place, and worse, preventing others from doing the right thing.
What on earth makes you think that I "think Germany is above criticism on this matter"? But I prefer criticism that is informed and thoughtful rather than just catharsis.
Because I've offered mild criticism of Germany (and I *think* politely to Germany), and you seem to have taken a lot of offence at that criticism.
I'd hope my replies show that my criticism is informed and thoughtful, even if you disagree with it. I think I've answered the questions you've asked?
OK I've had a quick look and I really can't find this taking "a lot of offence" you refer to. Perhaps mild annoyance at perceived inconsistencies and bias, which may well be illusory. I also have not said a single word in defence of Germany's policies, let alone suggested it is above criticism.
I think expecting Germany to show leadership in military matter is unrealistic, for now.
You may note I've not gone on a xenophobic rant about Germany. I've not called them rude words. I've not belittled them. You seem to agree with much of what I've said, but you seem to think my position is 'unbalanced'. So how do you balance it? How do you balance Germany refusing to allow other countries to send Leopard 2 tanks?
As for the last line above, why is it 'unrealistic' ? Is not what Russia's doing in Ukraine wrong? Does it not pose a military, political and financial threat to Europe and the EU? Is not Germany the biggest country (in terms of GDP) in the EU? Do they not like to take leadership in other matters?
I'd also argue that the last line you wrote above *is* a defence of Germany's policies.
Germany has been a democratic republic for more than 70 years. At what point can we expect them to pull their weight in terms of standing up for European democracy? And I mean committing militarily, not just giving lip service.
France also keeps of trying to give Russia an out with gains from their aggression. The reality is that of the major European powers, the UK is the best European when it comes to what truly matters.
I will defend Macron a little on this. Yes, he was talking to Putin and Russia. Yes, he was negotiating. Yes, I did think that was wrong at the time.
But one little thing changed my mind: the video of the conversation between Macron and Zelenskyy on the first day of the war. AFAICR Zelesnkyy asked Macron to talk to Putin (and I'm guessing that wasn't the first time he'd done that role). We needed (and probably still do need) someone big talking to Russia.
Just not *for* Russia.
Of the Big 3 European countries, the UK has done the most (in material help), and both France and Germany have lagged in different ways. It has also been a steadfast friend to Ukraine from the very beginning, and our backbone may have been absolutely essential at getting others on board.
With that said, France and Germany are far from the worst offenders as far as lack of support to Ukraine goes. Italy actually went on purchasing Russian gas for far longer than Germany, and has given almost no military aid to Ukraine, and somehow manage to avoid getting any approbation. (One could be equally harsh about Japan, which used the war to buy lots of cheap Russian LNG.)
And none of us have done quite as much we might have done. Estonia and Poland's contributions - relative to the size of their economies - are far greater than ours.
It's a little ironic, as back in 1918, Germany was one of the first countries to recognise Ukrainian independence.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Your assessment is based on what I believe to be several false premises. Unreliable renewables bake in fossil fuel use for the foreseeable - I don't know which shiny new technology is getting you excited about 'the end of the fossil fuel era', but what's been shared on here so far has not withstood any scrutiny. These include batteries, hydrogen, interconnectors with the continent, etc.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Humans are going to use up all the extractable fossil fuels. It's a question of over what length of time.
If we do that and fail to capture the CO2 that is released, then the ice caps will, slowly* but surely, melt entirely, raising the sea level by around 60m. The UK, if it still exists as a political entity, will become an archipelago.
* On a timescale of a couple of millennia.
Hang on - you're making a category error. Over time a greater and greater proportion of fossil fuels will be used for non-fuel purposes.
If oil is extracted and used to make plastic, which is then sequestered, then the net carbon emissions are essentially zero. (By the way, biodegradable is BAD. That means the bonds in the plastics break down, releasing carbon.)
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
But you're not looking at what has happened you're inventing a completely new scenario. Where is your evidence that Germany would provide no tanks if the US did?
I offered it as a possible scenario, rather cynically (you may have noticed the 'might') in my post.
But are you saying it wouldn't happen, give Scholz's rather odd behaviour so far over the supply of tanks?
Andy Murray is playing the fifth set at gone 3am in Australia. Both players look knackered.
Great for TV, can't think of any other sport that does this?
Tennis has a particularly perfect scoring system.
Five and a half hours play and no tea breaks. It's just not cricket.
Good thinking of Murray to avoid the back to back fifth set tie break. Should keep him fresher for the next round.
Andy Murray has won after being two sets down. If this were December he'd be a good shout for SPotY but it isn't and he will probably lose in the next round from sheer exhaustion.
He probably will yes. But Wimbledon beckons. If the fitness holds he can go deep there.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
I am not saying that is likely to happen. I am saying it can produce undergraduate essays on all those things.
As for Einstein and Origin consider the 4 colour theorem, and Fermat. We knew about them and studied them for centuries and got nowhere without computers. Then we solved them. If you read the intro to the second ed of OoS, Darwin got a lot of letters after the first edn daying Hey, I thought of that before you. Instead of saying No you didn't he says Yes, and so did all these other guys, and points to 10 or 15 complete statements of the theory prior to his first edition. So it is perfectly possible Chat GPT could have scraped those off the internet and restated them. Not qualified to comment on Einstein, but there's a widely held opinion that the Special Theory was bloomin' obvious all along and if albert hadn't come up with it someone else would have done. Someone else could be working quite closely with GPT these days.
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Your assessment is based on what I believe to be several false premises. Unreliable renewables bake in fossil fuel use for the foreseeable - I don't know which shiny new technology is getting you excited about 'the end of the fossil fuel era', but what's been shared on here so far has not withstood any scrutiny. These include batteries, hydrogen, interconnectors with the continent, etc.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Humans are going to use up all the extractable fossil fuels. It's a question of over what length of time.
If we do that and fail to capture the CO2 that is released, then the ice caps will, slowly* but surely, melt entirely, raising the sea level by around 60m. The UK, if it still exists as a political entity, will become an archipelago.
* On a timescale of a couple of millennia.
Hang on - you're making a category error. Over time a greater and greater proportion of fossil fuels will be used for non-fuel purposes.
If oil is extracted and used to make plastic, which is then sequestered, then the net carbon emissions are essentially zero. (By the way, biodegradable is BAD. That means the bonds in the plastics break down, releasing carbon.)
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
I am not saying that is likely to happen. I am saying it can produce undergraduate essays on all those things.
As for Einstein and Origin consider the 4 colour theorem, and Fermat. We knew about them and studied them for centuries and got nowhere without computers. Then we solved them. If you read the intro to the second ed of OoS, Darwin got a lot of letters after the first edn daying Hey, I thought of that before you. Instead of saying No you didn't he says Yes, and so did all these other guys, and points to 10 or 15 complete statements of the theory prior to his first edition. So it is perfectly possible Chat GPT could have scraped those off the internet and restated them. Not qualified to comment on Einstein, but there's a widely held opinion that the Special Theory was bloomin' obvious all along and if albert hadn't come up with it someone else would have done. Someone else could be working quite closely with GPT these days.
If you get a chance, read CP Snow's A Variety of Men. It contains little portraits of Einstein and Rutherford and others.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
But you're not looking at what has happened you're inventing a completely new scenario. Where is your evidence that Germany would provide no tanks if the US did?
I offered it as a possible scenario, rather cynically (you may have noticed the 'might') in my post.
But are you saying it wouldn't happen, give Scholz's rather odd behaviour so far over the supply of tanks?
Germany has been odd and reluctant at every stage, but in the end they've provided every capability of equipment that the US has provided. I don't expect tanks to be an exception.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
But you're not looking at what has happened you're inventing a completely new scenario. Where is your evidence that Germany would provide no tanks if the US did?
I offered it as a possible scenario, rather cynically (you may have noticed the 'might') in my post.
But are you saying it wouldn't happen, give Scholz's rather odd behaviour so far over the supply of tanks?
Germany has been odd and reluctant at every stage, but in the end they've provided every capability of equipment that the US has provided. I don't expect tanks to be an exception.
I hope you're correct. But they could just FDI.
And this matters: every day there's a delay, Ukrainians die. And they are fighting to keep us safe.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
But you're not looking at what has happened you're inventing a completely new scenario. Where is your evidence that Germany would provide no tanks if the US did?
I offered it as a possible scenario, rather cynically (you may have noticed the 'might') in my post.
But are you saying it wouldn't happen, give Scholz's rather odd behaviour so far over the supply of tanks?
Germany has been odd and reluctant at every stage, but in the end they've provided every capability of equipment that the US has provided. I don't expect tanks to be an exception.
I hope you're correct. But they could just FDI.
And this matters: every day there's a delay, Ukrainians die. And they are fighting to keep us safe.
If it was up to me British Challenger 2 tanks would have been sent a long time ago with British soldiers.
Germany's foot-dragging is frustrating, but I'm preferring to take the optimistic lesson from past episodes. The Leopard tanks will be sent. It would have been better if they'd been sent earlier, but perhaps there were good reasons - of diplomacy with the Chinese, of training before announcement, of working on logistics - for creating the public charade of apparent delay that has occurred at every stage.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
But you're not looking at what has happened you're inventing a completely new scenario. Where is your evidence that Germany would provide no tanks if the US did?
I offered it as a possible scenario, rather cynically (you may have noticed the 'might') in my post.
But are you saying it wouldn't happen, give Scholz's rather odd behaviour so far over the supply of tanks?
Germany has been odd and reluctant at every stage, but in the end they've provided every capability of equipment that the US has provided. I don't expect tanks to be an exception.
I hope you're correct. But they could just FDI.
And this matters: every day there's a delay, Ukrainians die. And they are fighting to keep us safe.
They really aren't. There's all sorts of reasons to support them in all possible ways. That is not one of them.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
Comments
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1616089972456714241?t=Mi2CNNAthMzPirjp0o8a-Q&s=19
https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1616084196052566018
I wonder what Biden and Scholz said on the subject in their recent conversation.
It's all adding up to a lot of extra equipment for Ukraine being promised this week.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1616093175109623812?t=d-V6WqMz4tBSQUiVER3tFA&s=19
“This issue is complicated and has not yet been settled in Paris. But we’re thinking about it” said a French official
https://twitter.com/ukraine_map/status/1616023318448021504
Realistically, Ukraine needs Leopards, which are available in numbers from several European sources (which would also be able to help with training and maintenance), not several different new systems to grapple with.
That applies also to the Abrams - either the US sends a load of them, or they are an unnecessary complication.
We've already had one symbolic gesture with the UK's Challengers.
Being deeply unpopular does not make for successful Netflix contracts
It is now time to turn the momentum that Ukrainians have achieved, and to make sure Russia “understands that the purpose now is to push them back out of Ukraine” and to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty, he says.
That seems very clear to me.
Thanks for the efforts/advice, but I'm going to be tricky to convert, I think
A concerted push to re-supply Ukraine with items equivalent in potency to HIMARS must be the worst nightmare of Russian generals.
NY Post - George Santos allegedly stole $3K in donations for veteran’s dying service dog: report
Disgraced Rep. George Santos allegedly conned a disabled, homeless veteran out of thousands of dollars donated to save the man’s dying service dog, according to a stomach-turning report. . . .
The veteran, Richard Osthoff, told the local news site Patch that he met Santos, who introduced himself as Anthony Devolder, during a tough time in his life in May 2016.
Osthoff, who was honorably discharged from the Navy in 2002, was living in a tent on the side of Route 9 in Howell, New Jersey, with his beloved service dog Sapphire at the time, Patch reported.
Sapphire was suffering from a life-threatening stomach tumor that was growing by the day and surgery to remove the tumor would cost $3,000, according to the vet’s estimate, Osthoff said.
The veteran, who couldn’t afford the surgery, said a veterinary technician took him aside and offered assistance via a pet charity called Friends of Pets United run by Anthony Devolder, an alias used by Santos in the past.
Devolder set up a GoFundMe to raise funds for Sapphire and once it hit its goal of $3,000, he closed and deleted the fundraising page and became hard to reach before he disappeared altogether, Osthoff told Patch. . . .
His account was corroborated by fellow veteran and retired New Jersey police Sgt. Michael Boll, who told Patch that when he heard what happened, he tried to help Osthoff by reaching out to Santos.
“I contacted [Santos] and told him, ‘You’re messing with a veteran,’ and that he needed to give back the money or use it to get Osthoff another dog,” Boll said. “He was totally uncooperative on the phone.” . . .
Santos claimed that he instead donated the $3,000 to other dogs in need because Sapphire wasn’t a candidate for surgery and Osthoff didn’t do things his way, according to a text exchange viewed by Patch.
After that, Osthoff was never able to reach Santos again.
There are no official records of Santos’ animal charity “Friends of Pets United” being registered as a tax-exempt organization or charity, according to the New York Times.
Another woman told the paper that she was scammed by the animal rescue group as well.
She was supposed to be the beneficiary of a 2017 fundraising event in which Santos charged $50 per person, but never received any of the funds. She told the Times that Santos offered excuse after excuse when asked about the funding. . . .
Santos denied even knowing Osthoff when asked about the veteran’s claims.
“Fake,” the embattled lawmaker texted Semafor. “No clue who this is.”
https://nypost.com/2023/01/18/george-santos-allegedly-stole-3k-in-donations-for-veterans-dying-service-dog/
Rail unions are going to have go all in for complete shutdown - or start thinking about this offer. Rail driver salaries are already at levels unlikely to garner widespread support.
The Government will tough out the offer.
There has been a lot of kit bound for Ukraine seen on European railways this past week.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/19/a-contentious-place-the-inside-story-of-tavistocks-nhs-gender-identity-clinic
I think we're seeing a big shift this week with a lot more active service hardware being sent to Ukraine. People had wondered what countries would do once they'd sent all their obsolete warehoused equipment, and I reckon we have the answer. They're now sending their best kit.
That in itself might free up a larger contingent of Ukrainian troops held in reserve for that purpose.
Have you seen the cavalry charges in dune buggies with a 0.5 cal?
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Or perhaps encourage the Germans with an order for a new Leopard 3's/KF51s.
The main problem is the Airmobile types who think anything that can't fit in a C-130 is useless.
Apart from the small fact that yes, you can airlift in a handful of vehicles. Which no-one on earth (except possibly the Americans) could support with airlift.
https://fundraising.co.uk/2023/01/19/amazonsmile-to-close-by-20-february/
The end conclusion is very clear to anyone that doesn't have a massive anti-American chip on their shoulder. Russia is forced to withdraw because it can no longer sustain the invasion. This has already happened three times in pieces. Firstly Russian forces had to withdrew from around Kiev. Then there was a second withdrawal from Kherson province. Then from Kharkiv. Each time is associated with a major round of missile strikes so the humiliation of the Russian army is not headline news, but you have to be blind not to see it. It will keep on happening until we are back to the 1991 borders.
NYT ($) - George Santos’s Mother Was Not in New York on 9/11, Records Show
Mr. Santos, who has come under intense criticism for fabricating large portions of his life story, had claimed she had been in the South Tower when it was struck.
Representative George Santos of New York has said consistently that his mother, Fatima Devolder, was working at her office in the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Even as he altered his official biography to remove other false claims, Mr. Santos’s account of ties to the tragedy remained.
But official immigration documents reviewed by The New York Times on Wednesday directly contradict that claim, too.
In an application for a visa to enter the United States filed in 2003, Ms. Devolder said that she had left the country for Brazil in June 1999 and had not returned since. In earlier paperwork filed in June 2001, three months before the attacks, Ms. Devolder said that she had been unable to return to the United States since 1999 because her green card had been stolen in Brazil.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Santos, who represents parts of Queens and Long Island, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Even as Mr. Santos’s web of falsehoods has angered his constituents and politicians from both sides of the aisle, lying about a connection to Sept. 11 has unique resonances in New York. But the claim that Mr. Santos’s mother witnessed the Sept. 11 attacks, which remained on his campaign website on Wednesday evening, marks the third notable occasion that Mr. Santos has appeared to falsely link himself to notorious tragedies.
In an interview after his election, Mr. Santos, who is gay, said that a company he had worked for “lost four employees” at the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando in June 2016. The Times reviewed news coverage and obituaries and found no evidence that could support the claim.
Mr. Santos, 34, has also said that his mother’s parents were Jewish refugees who fled persecution in Ukraine and “survived the Holocaust.” Mr. Santos has said that he grew up hearing that his maternal grandparents were Jewish refugees who came to Brazil. But in immigration documents filed with the State Department, Ms. Devolder, who died in 2016, said that both of her parents were born in Brazil. . . . .
Mr. Santos had also previously said that his mother worked her way up to become “the first female executive at a major financial institution.” But on immigration documents, she described herself as a housekeeper and home aide. . . .
Given AI is allegedly coming for accounting, middle management jobs etc It is not as if other fields are much safer either. Indeed if anything the more creative the job the less AI vulnerable it is
If we're not going to go ahead with Challenger 3 (sensible), then a licensing deal to build the Korean improved K2 tank is another option - and almost certainly a better deal in terms of UK manufacturing.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Today Show - George Santos denies taking $3,000 from dying dog’s GoFundMe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7ZjYkc8mqE
BTW, Republican "leadership" of US House has named Santos to two US House committees, Small Business; and Science, Space and Technology.
Two pots o' gold for a seasoned grifter like GS! Sage of Mar-a-Lardo MUST be proud!!
However, condolences to Jeffrey, Lord Archer. Who is sadly revealed as just a 2-class fraud, compared to the likes of Congressman Santos!!!
He should just FDI.
They've used gas as a weapon. Many countries will be very hesitant to load that weapon again.
China and India are *not* 'guzzling' Russian gas at the moment - because there's only a tiny pipeline to them from Russia, and not one from Russia's western gas fields. And Russia has very limited LNG export facilities - and they're expensive to make. Worse, Russia's relative lack of year-round ice-free coastline is also problematic. To give you an idea, a new pipeline to China is expected to be completed *this decade*. These projects have long-timescales and are massively expensive.
On supplying Leopard 2 tanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Poland’s PM Mateusz Morawiecki said: “Consent is of secondary importance here. We will either obtain this consent quickly, or we will do the right thing ourselves.”"
https://twitter.com/mhmck/status/1615966592252403720
and:
https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-ready-tanks-without-germany-mateusz-morawiecki-consent-olaf-scholz/
What would y… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616117566128197633
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
* On a timescale of a couple of millennia.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
U.S. prepping major military package for Ukraine
Friday’s announcement is expected to include Stryker vehicles, but not tanks.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18/major-military-package-ukraine-russia-00078331
...The reluctance is due to the logistical and maintenance challenges of the tanks, and not over concern that their transfer could escalate the conflict, one of the U.S. officials said. This person noted that the U.S. has helped Ukraine obtain Soviet-era tanks and supports the British decision to send around a dozen of its Challenger 2 tanks.
The package will likely include a number of Strykers, an eight-wheeled armored fighting vehicle built by General Dynamics Land Systems, as well as ground-launched Small Diameter Bombs, which have a range of roughly 100 miles, two of the people said. POLITICO first reported last week that the Pentagon was considering sending Strykers in the upcoming tranche of aid. Reuters first reported that Boeing-made Small Diameter Bombs were under discussion...
Though that was yesterday's report, so who knows.
Doesn't stop him being weak and weird though
With that said, France and Germany are far from the worst offenders as far as lack of support to Ukraine goes. Italy actually went on purchasing Russian gas for far longer than Germany, and has given almost no military aid to Ukraine, and somehow manage to avoid getting any approbation. (One could be equally harsh about Japan, which used the war to buy lots of cheap Russian LNG.)
And none of us have done quite as much we might have done. Estonia and Poland's contributions - relative to the size of their economies - are far greater than ours.
That West Wing reboot may actually be happening, according to Aaron Sorkin
https://entertainment.ie/amp/tv/tv-news/that-west-wing-reboot-may-actually-be-happening-according-to-aaron-sorkin-202434/
If oil is extracted and used to make plastic, which is then sequestered, then the net carbon emissions are essentially zero. (By the way, biodegradable is BAD. That means the bonds in the plastics break down, releasing carbon.)
But are you saying it wouldn't happen, give Scholz's rather odd behaviour so far over the supply of tanks?
As for Einstein and Origin consider the 4 colour theorem, and Fermat. We knew about them and studied them for centuries and got nowhere without computers. Then we solved them. If you read the intro to the second ed of OoS, Darwin got a lot of letters after the first edn daying Hey, I thought of that before you. Instead of saying No you didn't he says Yes, and so did all these other guys, and points to 10 or 15 complete statements of the theory prior to his first edition. So it is perfectly possible Chat GPT could have scraped those off the internet and restated them. Not qualified to comment on Einstein, but there's a widely held opinion that the Special Theory was bloomin' obvious all along and if albert hadn't come up with it someone else would have done. Someone else could be working quite closely with GPT these days.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
And this matters: every day there's a delay, Ukrainians die. And they are fighting to keep us safe.
Germany's foot-dragging is frustrating, but I'm preferring to take the optimistic lesson from past episodes. The Leopard tanks will be sent. It would have been better if they'd been sent earlier, but perhaps there were good reasons - of diplomacy with the Chinese, of training before announcement, of working on logistics - for creating the public charade of apparent delay that has occurred at every stage.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10077552/transgender-woman-rape/
Published: 21:52, 17 Jan 2023Updated: 10:45, 18 Jan 2023
Nothing to see here.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
Sexual Offences Act 2003:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates....