Isn't the "head of NATO" basically a symbolic, non-job?
The power resides with the nation states. USA primarily? If it's a role where he doesn't really have anything to do other than posturing and strutting around the world stage showing off he'd probably be quite good at that lol?
I used a bit of "battlefield math" to explain my rationale. 1/16
Very prescient.
IMHO, Russia could still have won had they focused on a couple of fronts with overwhelming force.
With hindsight, it’s reasonably clear that they could have taken a large slug of territory in the east, and held it, if Putin had limited his ambitions. Also if they’d done that, the impetus for western arms supplies would have been less, and the voices for compromise with the dictator, stronger.
But Putin wanted to take the whole country quickly, and wasted some of his better troops and equipment in the abortive attempt on Kyiv.
And I don’t think they could have ‘won’.
IMV it was a damned near-run thing. *If* things had gone differently at Hostomel, then we could be facing a Ukrainian government that is a Belarus-style puppet. If Ukraine had not had the warning, and some intelligence (in all its forms), and some good anti-tank weapons, then it might all look very different now.
Hostomel was key.
Having said that: in the first few days, I believe I stated that even if Russia 'won' Ukraine, they'd have a blooming hard job holding it, and Ukraine would win its independence again eventually. They'd just been too keen to fight Russia's tyranny since 2014 just to give in. At best, Russia would be facing an ongoing insurgency.
I used a bit of "battlefield math" to explain my rationale. 1/16
Very prescient.
IMHO, Russia could still have won had they focused on a couple of fronts with overwhelming force.
With hindsight, it’s reasonably clear that they could have taken a large slug of territory in the east, and held it, if Putin had limited his ambitions. Also if they’d done that, the impetus for western arms supplies would have been less, and the voices for compromise with the dictator, stronger.
But Putin wanted to take the whole country quickly, and wasted some of his better troops and equipment in the abortive attempt on Kyiv.
And I don’t think they could have ‘won’.
The thing that still surprises me most is that they didn't start the big war with a sustained two-week air campaign. Lots of precision missiles at various high-value military targets and air defences, then the air force to take out anything that moves. By the time ground troops went in they should have been able to take out any Ukrainian artillery or tanks that emerged from hiding very quickly.
At the time this seemed like a baffling choice, but now it appears that it was because the Russians simply aren't capable of such an air campaign. They don't have the target-acquisition intelligence, and they don't have the air-fighting training, to make such a campaign remotely possible. And so they haven't even been able to make a serious attempt at intercepting the supply of Western weaponry as it crosses western Ukraine.
It’s so refreshing to see that the Brexit vote and leaving of the EU has ended all those ‘everything is the fault of the EU’ stories. Such a shame they’ve been replaced with ‘everything is the fault of Brexit’.
On the lack of (mainly) tomatoes, it’s seems clear that there are lots of factors, including poor weather in certain countries, energy costs in the U.K., poor planning by shops and, yes, Brexit. But I’m sick and tired of the facile, ‘it’s Brexit, stupid’ approach. Brexit is still so divisive, so polarised that there is no point in debating. Positions are more entrenched than the Western Front in 1916. There is no argument that will move either side.
Tbh I don’t think anyone on PB comes out of an Ukraine war futurology/post mortem particularly well. Everyone got multiple things wrong. From those that said the war would never happen to those that said Russia would win quickly to those that said Russia would collapse from sanctions: all were wrong
Did anyone predict from the outset that there would be a massive war but it would end up a slow stagnant verdun-like meatgrinder with no winner, even after a year?
If that pb-er exists, chapeau. I don’t know if they do exist
Last year - in June or July - I said that Russia's ability to sustain offensive operations would come to an end at the end early in 2023, when they ran out of shells and young men to fling at Ukraine.
While I may be off by a couple of months, I think there's a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the offing, and - if it successful - then the war could end very quickly.
Well you were right-ish about ammunition, and probably wrong about the young men. And there will almost certainly be an Ukraine offensive soon (if it hasn’t already started). How quickly the war end depends much of the pace of arms supplies from the west. Ukraine could retake a large amount of territory very quickly, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the war ends.
Btw I check a few of the threads from February last year, and the prevailing tone is uncertainty, rather than silly statement if what will happen. (Though there were a couple of its almost certain Ukraine will surrender predictions even after the initial attempt at the Kiev coup had failed.)
How many more countries do they claim dominion over ?
Putin is simply a megalomaniac nutter.
It does seem that Russia’s “big push” does not amount to much.
I'll be a lot happier when this month is over. It's the anniversary of the invasion tomorrow, and Putin apparently likes symbolism. At the very least, I expect a missile barrage tomorrow. There's a chance the Russians have been reserving large amounts of material for a big push, and what we've seen over the last few weeks have just been expensive shaping operations. Or/and, some mischief in Transnistria / Moldova / Belarus.
Though I hope I'm wrong.
But the longer the Russians waging war in the manner they are, the greater the chance they tactically lose. They've already lost strategically: they've damaged their country massively, to an extent that will take decades to recover from. The only question now is whether Ukraine 'lose' as well...
It's a bit of a fool's errand to try and second-guess Putin's thinking, but it's impossible not to try. I've heard some speculation that the big push was launched before the anniversary in the hope that it would yield at least one gain that could be trumpeted as a major victory on the anniversary. They're getting closer to forcing the Ukrainians to retreat from Bakhmut, but it looks like that's going to be late for the anniversary tomorrow.
And it's really, really hard to sell Bakhmut as a big win. Even more so when you look at what it's cost them.
More interesting are the arguments between Wagner/Prigozhin and the real army, and the rumours that Russia are bringing the BTR-50 back into service. This was developed in the early 1950s, and the last ones were built in 1970. They're better than nothing, but they're also a sign of desperation.
It’s so refreshing to see that the Brexit vote and leaving of the EU has ended all those ‘everything is the fault of the EU’ stories. Such a shame they’ve been replaced with ‘everything is the fault of Brexit’.
On the lack of (mainly) tomatoes, it’s seems clear that there are lots of factors, including poor weather in certain countries, energy costs in the U.K., poor planning by shops and, yes, Brexit. But I’m sick and tired of the facile, ‘it’s Brexit, stupid’ approach. Brexit is still so divisive, so polarised that there is no point in debating. Positions are more entrenched than the Western Front in 1916. There is no argument that will move either side.
The thing that is sort-of darkly amusing about the current situation is that, sometimes, it is everyone blaming Brexit. Of course, there are erstwhile Remainers who are blaming Brexit for the rain, or the lack of rain, or stubbing their toes, but there are also lots of Brexit supporters who are blaming Brexit [not being done properly] for their lack of virility, the declining standard of jam at M&S and the shockingly poor exchange rate.
Turnips are like sprouts and parsnips. I think they’re only fit for livestock, but some people adore them.
Peoples tastebuds differ. Some find sproutsvery bitter, others less so. Personally like a good sprout, and adore roast parsnip. Turnips go well in a beef stew.
I adore roast/glazed parsnips.
Parsnip's are also very good as a soup. Between their inherent flavour & texture - they go so well with a lot of nice flavours. Caraway, turmeric, or just butter, milk and parsley.
I think Russia's "decapitation" strategy - capture of Kyiv, followed by the collapse of the Ukrainian government and Russians taking over in the vacuum had a realistic chance of coming off.
The problem was they didn't have a Plan B for when it didn't work. In that case they would have done better going for a lower risk strategy eg limited to the Donbas.
Turnips are like sprouts and parsnips. I think they’re only fit for livestock, but some people adore them.
Peoples tastebuds differ. Some find sproutsvery bitter, others less so. Personally like a good sprout, and adore roast parsnip. Turnips go well in a beef stew.
I adore roast/glazed parsnips.
The irony being of course that Ben Elton had got confused and the thing he called a 'turnip' in the script was actually a parsnip.
I’m going to watch this later tonight. I love wacky 60s films. 🫡
It's a very, very poor film. Be warned! I'd give "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer" (admittedly 1970) a go if you want a bit of slightly off-beat satire!
Out of ideas. Jobs awarded not on the basis of skill or competence, but ideology, loyalty and/or pragmatic necessity.
They’ve lost the media, the public.
Smart people want nothing to do with the government, trust has evaporated and comms descend into farce.
They need to be put out of their misery.
What is wrong with British turnips? There is a war on in Europe, extreme weather in Spain and North Africa, we voted to leave the EU, we need to grow and eat more of our own food
With respect, Hyufd, I think even you would have approached the comms of this in a more strategic manner.
*Don’t give them the quote*
Politics 101.
I would have appeared in a field of turnips with a farmer and promised to champion 'the great and nutritious British turnip!'
Out of ideas. Jobs awarded not on the basis of skill or competence, but ideology, loyalty and/or pragmatic necessity.
They’ve lost the media, the public.
Smart people want nothing to do with the government, trust has evaporated and comms descend into farce.
They need to be put out of their misery.
What is wrong with British turnips? There is a war on in Europe, extreme weather in Spain and North Africa, we voted to leave the EU, we need to grow and eat more of our own food
With respect, Hyufd, I think even you would have approached the comms of this in a more strategic manner.
*Don’t give them the quote*
Politics 101.
I would have appeared in a field of turnips with a farmer and promised to champion 'the great and nutritious British turnip!'
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
Like the way he describes her actions as a "mistake" as if joining an organisation that beheaded people and burnt them alive, and watching gay men being thrown to their deaths, was comparable to not paying a parking ticket. Some of the Hitler Youth should have had this chap on board.
Otto English is a nasty, detestable c8nt
Begum took active part in the enslavement of people. Real, actual slavery.
At least the government of the day had the balls to try Amery and Joyce, dubiety in the trial of Joyce notwithstanding.
A different age. In 1945, no lawyer would have tried to get the treason laws thrown out as archaic or immoral or whatever. Begum would have got John Amery’s fate.
The practise of law has been steadily “improved” since then, under various governments. Until we have, apparently, no way to prosecute.
What I find interesting is the horror with which my proposals for a treason law get, when I put them in front of some lawyers. Why is that?
It's an extreme form of individualism which holds that one has no duties to the State or one's fellow citizens. Earlier generations had no difficulty with the idea that there are reciprocal obligations between state and citizen.
In it's most extreme form Woke is simply a form of hyper-individualism, which in itself is very anglo-Western and just pan-globalised.
I just remembered something about my private education, from when I was at prep school from 7 to 13
The students were the cleaners
We were divided into six "Houses", but they didn't determine where we slept; they just put us into teams for sports and cleaning. We had to sweep the wooden floors of all the classrooms, changing rooms, assembly rooms and corridors of the school, and empty all the bins
The headmaster or his wife would inspect the whole school every evening and we'd be marked on the cleanliness and tidiness. If your area was shitty, you'd have to go for a run in the morning
At the end of the term the House with the best overall score won a prize. I think the prize was that you got to get first choice of seats at the end of term film and a special snack
I just remembered something about my private education, from when I was at prep school from 7 to 13
The students were the cleaners
We were divided into six "Houses", but they didn't determine where we slept; they just put us into teams for sports and cleaning. We had to sweep the wooden floors of all the classrooms, changing rooms, assembly rooms and corridors of the school, and empty all the bins
The headmaster or his wife would inspect the whole school every evening and we'd be marked on the cleanliness and tidiness. If your area was shitty, you'd have to go for a run in the morning
At the end of the term the House with the best overall score won a prize. I think the prize was that you got to get first choice of seats at the end of term film and a special snack
Tbh I don’t think anyone on PB comes out of an Ukraine war futurology/post mortem particularly well. Everyone got multiple things wrong. From those that said the war would never happen to those that said Russia would win quickly to those that said Russia would collapse from sanctions: all were wrong
Did anyone predict from the outset that there would be a massive war but it would end up a slow stagnant verdun-like meatgrinder with no winner, even after a year?
If that pb-er exists, chapeau. I don’t know if they do exist
Last year - in June or July - I said that Russia's ability to sustain offensive operations would come to an end at the end early in 2023, when they ran out of shells and young men to fling at Ukraine.
While I may be off by a couple of months, I think there's a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the offing, and - if it successful - then the war could end very quickly.
Well you were right-ish about ammunition, and probably wrong about the young men. And there will almost certainly be an Ukraine offensive soon (if it hasn’t already started). How quickly the war end depends much of the pace of arms supplies from the west. Ukraine could retake a large amount of territory very quickly, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the war ends.
Btw I check a few of the threads from February last year, and the prevailing tone is uncertainty, rather than silly statement if what will happen. (Though there were a couple of its almost certain Ukraine will surrender predictions even after the initial attempt at the Kiev coup had failed.)
How many more countries do they claim dominion over ?
Putin is simply a megalomaniac nutter.
It does seem that Russia’s “big push” does not amount to much.
I'll be a lot happier when this month is over. It's the anniversary of the invasion tomorrow, and Putin apparently likes symbolism. At the very least, I expect a missile barrage tomorrow. There's a chance the Russians have been reserving large amounts of material for a big push, and what we've seen over the last few weeks have just been expensive shaping operations. Or/and, some mischief in Transnistria / Moldova / Belarus.
Though I hope I'm wrong.
But the longer the Russians waging war in the manner they are, the greater the chance they tactically lose. They've already lost strategically: they've damaged their country massively, to an extent that will take decades to recover from. The only question now is whether Ukraine 'lose' as well...
It's a bit of a fool's errand to try and second-guess Putin's thinking, but it's impossible not to try. I've heard some speculation that the big push was launched before the anniversary in the hope that it would yield at least one gain that could be trumpeted as a major victory on the anniversary. They're getting closer to forcing the Ukrainians to retreat from Bakhmut, but it looks like that's going to be late for the anniversary tomorrow.
And it's really, really hard to sell Bakhmut as a big win. Even more so when you look at what it's cost them.
More interesting are the arguments between Wagner/Prigozhin and the real army, and the rumours that Russia are bringing the BTR-50 back into service. This was developed in the early 1950s, and the last ones were built in 1970. They're better than nothing, but they're also a sign of desperation.
If they can get the BTR-50s to move then they're probably more useful than the T-62s they pressed into service some time ago. They can perform a role behind the immediate front lines - medevac, moving people about - and they do at least provide protection against small arms fire. But T-62s...
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
John Amery was white, male, upper class. William Joyce was white, male, middle class.
That did not save them from being executed, in the aftermath of WWII, for acting similarly to Shamima Begum.
Similar yes, but I think objectively, Begum was groomed. She was under 16 when she left to join ISIS, and by her admission, did not believe what she thought was Western propaganda about ISIS.
I'd rather see her tried for crimes that she has committed, but I don't think thats easy. How much evidence is there? Where should a trial be? Its not as if we have a Nuremberg style trial system going for ISIS.
Just drone her
Stop being an attention-seeking twat just for the sake of it
We drone our Islamist enemies all the time. She is one of them. What’s the difference with her?
The alternative - which I prefer - is that we pay the Syrians or Iraqis or Yazidis - her victims, remember - to try her. I imagine they will execute her. Being an ISIS bride is a capital offence. Oh well
You don't think that she was 15 years of age at the inception of her crimes might count for just a teensy weensy little something?
No, not when, at the age of 21, she expressed ZERO regret for her actions, for enslaving the Yazidi, for abetting genocide, for assisting in the Nazi style ravaging of entire nations
Drone her in situ, or let the Kurds/Yazidi try her and - if and when convicted - execute her. If it salves your pathetic bleating look-at-me liberal conscience we can also pay for the noose
Leon – the piss artist on the internet, kangaroo court administrator, judge and jury, says: "Off with her head."
Justice is so much simpler these days.
This one is actually quite simple. If a British citizen commits a vile rape or murder in a foreign country, we don’t clamour to “bring them home”. We let them face Justice from those they were unjust against, where they did their evil crimes. So it is, here
All else is performative liberal wank from the likes of you
Shamina has got her cleavage out for a reason.
Performative liberal wank is exactly the strategy.
Tbh I don’t think anyone on PB comes out of an Ukraine war futurology/post mortem particularly well. Everyone got multiple things wrong. From those that said the war would never happen to those that said Russia would win quickly to those that said Russia would collapse from sanctions: all were wrong
Did anyone predict from the outset that there would be a massive war but it would end up a slow stagnant verdun-like meatgrinder with no winner, even after a year?
If that pb-er exists, chapeau. I don’t know if they do exist
Last year - in June or July - I said that Russia's ability to sustain offensive operations would come to an end at the end early in 2023, when they ran out of shells and young men to fling at Ukraine.
While I may be off by a couple of months, I think there's a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the offing, and - if it successful - then the war could end very quickly.
Well you were right-ish about ammunition, and probably wrong about the young men. And there will almost certainly be an Ukraine offensive soon (if it hasn’t already started). How quickly the war end depends much of the pace of arms supplies from the west. Ukraine could retake a large amount of territory very quickly, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the war ends.
Btw I check a few of the threads from February last year, and the prevailing tone is uncertainty, rather than silly statement if what will happen. (Though there were a couple of its almost certain Ukraine will surrender predictions even after the initial attempt at the Kiev coup had failed.)
How many more countries do they claim dominion over ?
Putin is simply a megalomaniac nutter.
It does seem that Russia’s “big push” does not amount to much.
I'll be a lot happier when this month is over. It's the anniversary of the invasion tomorrow, and Putin apparently likes symbolism. At the very least, I expect a missile barrage tomorrow. There's a chance the Russians have been reserving large amounts of material for a big push, and what we've seen over the last few weeks have just been expensive shaping operations. Or/and, some mischief in Transnistria / Moldova / Belarus.
Though I hope I'm wrong.
But the longer the Russians waging war in the manner they are, the greater the chance they tactically lose. They've already lost strategically: they've damaged their country massively, to an extent that will take decades to recover from. The only question now is whether Ukraine 'lose' as well...
It's a bit of a fool's errand to try and second-guess Putin's thinking, but it's impossible not to try. I've heard some speculation that the big push was launched before the anniversary in the hope that it would yield at least one gain that could be trumpeted as a major victory on the anniversary. They're getting closer to forcing the Ukrainians to retreat from Bakhmut, but it looks like that's going to be late for the anniversary tomorrow.
And it's really, really hard to sell Bakhmut as a big win. Even more so when you look at what it's cost them.
More interesting are the arguments between Wagner/Prigozhin and the real army, and the rumours that Russia are bringing the BTR-50 back into service. This was developed in the early 1950s, and the last ones were built in 1970. They're better than nothing, but they're also a sign of desperation.
If they can get the BTR-50s to move then they're probably more useful than the T-62s they pressed into service some time ago. They can perform a role behind the immediate front lines - medevac, moving people about - and they do at least provide protection against small arms fire. But T-62s...
I have been saying from the beginning a Ukrainian win is inevitable but it would take a long time, and compared it to Afghanistan. Though I said it would be a few years, not decades.
Out of ideas. Jobs awarded not on the basis of skill or competence, but ideology, loyalty and/or pragmatic necessity.
They’ve lost the media, the public.
Smart people want nothing to do with the government, trust has evaporated and comms descend into farce.
They need to be put out of their misery.
What is wrong with British turnips? There is a war on in Europe, extreme weather in Spain and North Africa, we voted to leave the EU, we need to grow and eat more of our own food
With respect, Hyufd, I think even you would have approached the comms of this in a more strategic manner.
*Don’t give them the quote*
Politics 101.
I would have appeared in a field of turnips with a farmer and promised to champion 'the great and nutritious British turnip!'
Labour are going with Great British Energy.
You are going with Great British Turnip.
Good luck.
Nah, we dumped that. Rishi Sunak is the PM now.
I thought the Great British Turnip was Graham Taylor
I'm not sure if it's called 'cognitive dissonance' - I always switch off when I hear 'clever' phrases, but there's definitely yawning a lack of connection, even here on PB, between Government policy, and the outworkings of those policies. Our much vaunted new agricultural policy offers money to farmers to turn vast tracts of land from food production to scrubland. That is food that would once have appeared on supermarket shelves. Our policy on energy is to penalise North Sea Oil investment, ban fracking, and our Energy Security minister prioritises selfies with Bill Gates over increasing the energy supply. That is one reason why it is uneconomical to heat polytunnels. If you don't like empty supermarket shelves and cold homes, hows about supporting policies to solve those issues, or at least not clapping like sealions for policies that make them worse.
More openly genocidal threats on prime time Russian TV: Russian MP and retired army general Andrei Gurulyov calls for the complete destruction of Kyiv, a city with a population of over three million https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1628511713938087938
I'm not sure if it's called 'cognitive dissonance' - I always switch off when I hear 'clever' phrases, but there's definitely yawning a lack of connection, even here on PB, between Government policy, and the outworkings of those policies. Our much vaunted new agricultural policy offers money to farmers to turn vast tracts of land from food production to scrubland. That is food that would once have appeared on supermarket shelves. Our policy on energy is to penalise North Sea Oil investment, ban fracking, and our Energy Security minister prioritises selfies with Bill Gates over increasing the energy supply. That is one reason why it is uneconomical to heat polytunnels. If you don't like empty supermarket shelves and cold homes, hows about supporting policies to solve those issues, or at least not clapping like sealions for policies that make them worse.
Anyone that seriously thinks widescale fracking is economically viable in the UK, under any policy regime, has shown they don't really understand energy production.
I'm not sure if it's called 'cognitive dissonance' - I always switch off when I hear 'clever' phrases, but there's definitely yawning a lack of connection, even here on PB, between Government policy, and the outworkings of those policies. Our much vaunted new agricultural policy offers money to farmers to turn vast tracts of land from food production to scrubland. That is food that would once have appeared on supermarket shelves. Our policy on energy is to penalise North Sea Oil investment, ban fracking, and our Energy Security minister prioritises selfies with Bill Gates over increasing the energy supply. That is one reason why it is uneconomical to heat polytunnels. If you don't like empty supermarket shelves and cold homes, hows about supporting policies to solve those issues, or at least not clapping like sealions for policies that make them worse.
Anyone that seriously thinks widescale fracking is economically viable in the UK, under any policy regime, has shown they don't really understand energy production.
Well, in one way it is energy production. It's the source of a lot of hot air.
I'm not sure if it's called 'cognitive dissonance' - I always switch off when I hear 'clever' phrases, but there's definitely yawning a lack of connection, even here on PB, between Government policy, and the outworkings of those policies. Our much vaunted new agricultural policy offers money to farmers to turn vast tracts of land from food production to scrubland. That is food that would once have appeared on supermarket shelves. Our policy on energy is to penalise North Sea Oil investment, ban fracking, and our Energy Security minister prioritises selfies with Bill Gates over increasing the energy supply. That is one reason why it is uneconomical to heat polytunnels. If you don't like empty supermarket shelves and cold homes, hows about supporting policies to solve those issues, or at least not clapping like sealions for policies that make them worse.
Anyone that seriously thinks widescale fracking is economically viable in the UK, under any policy regime, has shown they don't really understand energy production.
I just remembered something about my private education, from when I was at prep school from 7 to 13
The students were the cleaners
We were divided into six "Houses", but they didn't determine where we slept; they just put us into teams for sports and cleaning. We had to sweep the wooden floors of all the classrooms, changing rooms, assembly rooms and corridors of the school, and empty all the bins
The headmaster or his wife would inspect the whole school every evening and we'd be marked on the cleanliness and tidiness. If your area was shitty, you'd have to go for a run in the morning
At the end of the term the House with the best overall score won a prize. I think the prize was that you got to get first choice of seats at the end of term film and a special snack
Did anybody else have to clean their school?
Taiwanese and Japanese kids do. Even in kindergarten. But in Taiwan everyone, including the teachers, lay on the floor for an hour's kip afterwards. Paging DfE for possible strike solutions.
I used a bit of "battlefield math" to explain my rationale. 1/16
Very prescient.
IMHO, Russia could still have won had they focused on a couple of fronts with overwhelming force.
With hindsight, it’s reasonably clear that they could have taken a large slug of territory in the east, and held it, if Putin had limited his ambitions. Also if they’d done that, the impetus for western arms supplies would have been less, and the voices for compromise with the dictator, stronger.
But Putin wanted to take the whole country quickly, and wasted some of his better troops and equipment in the abortive attempt on Kyiv.
And I don’t think they could have ‘won’.
IMV it was a damned near-run thing. *If* things had gone differently at Hostomel, then we could be facing a Ukrainian government that is a Belarus-style puppet. If Ukraine had not had the warning, and some intelligence (in all its forms), and some good anti-tank weapons, then it might all look very different now.
Hostomel was key.
Having said that: in the first few days, I believe I stated that even if Russia 'won' Ukraine, they'd have a blooming hard job holding it, and Ukraine would win its independence again eventually. They'd just been too keen to fight Russia's tyranny since 2014 just to give in. At best, Russia would be facing an ongoing insurgency.
Insurgents mostly lose.
Irregular warfare is always the second best alternative to regular warfare.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
Ghislaine Maxwell fits that statement, yet the government has made no move to strip her of her British citizenship. She has French and USA citizenship to fall back on.
They don't really need to though as she is going to be in a us prison for a long long time so its not needed....begum on the other hand would be proseletying down finsbury park mosque by now if we hadn't
The locals are (rightly) prosecuting her for her crimes, so I don't think that's true.
As far as last I heard they havent prosecuted her in syria yet and she is still in a camp. Good let them prosecute her
The U.K. has asked them not to. They are quite attuned to media, and know that sentencing a U.K. connected person would ignite a firestorm.
I'm not sure if it's called 'cognitive dissonance' - I always switch off when I hear 'clever' phrases, but there's definitely yawning a lack of connection, even here on PB, between Government policy, and the outworkings of those policies. Our much vaunted new agricultural policy offers money to farmers to turn vast tracts of land from food production to scrubland. That is food that would once have appeared on supermarket shelves. Our policy on energy is to penalise North Sea Oil investment, ban fracking, and our Energy Security minister prioritises selfies with Bill Gates over increasing the energy supply. That is one reason why it is uneconomical to heat polytunnels. If you don't like empty supermarket shelves and cold homes, hows about supporting policies to solve those issues, or at least not clapping like sealions for policies that make them worse.
Anyone that seriously thinks widescale fracking is economically viable in the UK, under any policy regime, has shown they don't really understand energy production.
So no need for a ban then.
That doesn't follow at all. Just because fracking can't achieve widescale viability doesn't mean it can't cause harm in some places.
Honestly, just stop and think through basic logical reasoning before throwing out these knee jerk responses. This is the Twitterization of debate.
I used a bit of "battlefield math" to explain my rationale. 1/16
Very prescient.
IMHO, Russia could still have won had they focused on a couple of fronts with overwhelming force.
With hindsight, it’s reasonably clear that they could have taken a large slug of territory in the east, and held it, if Putin had limited his ambitions. Also if they’d done that, the impetus for western arms supplies would have been less, and the voices for compromise with the dictator, stronger.
But Putin wanted to take the whole country quickly, and wasted some of his better troops and equipment in the abortive attempt on Kyiv.
And I don’t think they could have ‘won’.
IMV it was a damned near-run thing. *If* things had gone differently at Hostomel, then we could be facing a Ukrainian government that is a Belarus-style puppet. If Ukraine had not had the warning, and some intelligence (in all its forms), and some good anti-tank weapons, then it might all look very different now.
Hostomel was key.
Having said that: in the first few days, I believe I stated that even if Russia 'won' Ukraine, they'd have a blooming hard job holding it, and Ukraine would win its independence again eventually. They'd just been too keen to fight Russia's tyranny since 2014 just to give in. At best, Russia would be facing an ongoing insurgency.
Insurgents mostly lose.
Irregular warfare is always the second best alternative to regular warfare.
Insurgents that have the support of the majority of the population hardly ever lose.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
Ghislaine Maxwell fits that statement, yet the government has made no move to strip her of her British citizenship. She has French and USA citizenship to fall back on.
They don't really need to though as she is going to be in a us prison for a long long time so its not needed....begum on the other hand would be proseletying down finsbury park mosque by now if we hadn't
The locals are (rightly) prosecuting her for her crimes, so I don't think that's true.
As far as last I heard they havent prosecuted her in syria yet and she is still in a camp. Good let them prosecute her
The U.K. has asked them not to. They are quite attuned to media, and know that sentencing a U.K. connected person would ignite a firestorm.
Where?
If she were found guilty in a local court, most people would be satisfied.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
Ghislaine Maxwell fits that statement, yet the government has made no move to strip her of her British citizenship. She has French and USA citizenship to fall back on.
They don't really need to though as she is going to be in a us prison for a long long time so its not needed....begum on the other hand would be proseletying down finsbury park mosque by now if we hadn't
The locals are (rightly) prosecuting her for her crimes, so I don't think that's true.
As far as last I heard they havent prosecuted her in syria yet and she is still in a camp. Good let them prosecute her
The U.K. has asked them not to. They are quite attuned to media, and know that sentencing a U.K. connected person would ignite a firestorm.
It would only ignite a firestorm amongst guardianista's on the whole, the same people who got up in arms about people being prosecuted for their part in the 2011 london riots. Most of the country would be cheering the syrians on
I just remembered something about my private education, from when I was at prep school from 7 to 13
The students were the cleaners
We were divided into six "Houses", but they didn't determine where we slept; they just put us into teams for sports and cleaning. We had to sweep the wooden floors of all the classrooms, changing rooms, assembly rooms and corridors of the school, and empty all the bins
The headmaster or his wife would inspect the whole school every evening and we'd be marked on the cleanliness and tidiness. If your area was shitty, you'd have to go for a run in the morning
At the end of the term the House with the best overall score won a prize. I think the prize was that you got to get first choice of seats at the end of term film and a special snack
Did anybody else have to clean their school?
Taiwanese and Japanese kids do. Even in kindergarten. But in Taiwan everyone, including the teachers, lay on the floor for an hour's kip afterwards. Paging DfE for possible strike solutions.
Teachers and students sleeping together might send them the wrong signal.
Not of course that they care about safeguarding or Spielman wouldn't be running OFSTED.
I'm not sure if it's called 'cognitive dissonance' - I always switch off when I hear 'clever' phrases, but there's definitely yawning a lack of connection, even here on PB, between Government policy, and the outworkings of those policies. Our much vaunted new agricultural policy offers money to farmers to turn vast tracts of land from food production to scrubland. That is food that would once have appeared on supermarket shelves. Our policy on energy is to penalise North Sea Oil investment, ban fracking, and our Energy Security minister prioritises selfies with Bill Gates over increasing the energy supply. That is one reason why it is uneconomical to heat polytunnels. If you don't like empty supermarket shelves and cold homes, hows about supporting policies to solve those issues, or at least not clapping like sealions for policies that make them worse.
Anyone that seriously thinks widescale fracking is economically viable in the UK, under any policy regime, has shown they don't really understand energy production.
So no need for a ban then.
That doesn't follow at all. Just because fracking can't achieve widescale viability doesn't mean it can't cause harm in some places.
Honestly, just stop and think through basic logical reasoning before throwing out these knee jerk responses. This is the Twitterization of debate.
I find it quite amusing that you think your pompous evidence-free twaddle stands for the voice of reason. Any fracking activity would need to conform to planning regulations and appropriate safety standards. Any companies operating in the fracking sphere would get no subsidy at all, as opposed to wind farm owners, who get billions of pounds worth in subsidy a year. So where exactly is the harm, in an energy crisis, of lifting a ban that prevents existing wells from being used to extract oil and gas? The ban is a crass anachronism that any Government worthy of the name would have shredded by now.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
Ghislaine Maxwell fits that statement, yet the government has made no move to strip her of her British citizenship. She has French and USA citizenship to fall back on.
They don't really need to though as she is going to be in a us prison for a long long time so its not needed....begum on the other hand would be proseletying down finsbury park mosque by now if we hadn't
The locals are (rightly) prosecuting her for her crimes, so I don't think that's true.
As far as last I heard they havent prosecuted her in syria yet and she is still in a camp. Good let them prosecute her
The U.K. has asked them not to. They are quite attuned to media, and know that sentencing a U.K. connected person would ignite a firestorm.
Where?
If she were found guilty in a local court, most people would be satisfied.
A Muslim being sentenced in a Yazidi court?
All the human rights lawyers in the U.K. would explode like Lemmings in the old computer game….
I'm not sure if it's called 'cognitive dissonance' - I always switch off when I hear 'clever' phrases, but there's definitely yawning a lack of connection, even here on PB, between Government policy, and the outworkings of those policies. Our much vaunted new agricultural policy offers money to farmers to turn vast tracts of land from food production to scrubland. That is food that would once have appeared on supermarket shelves. Our policy on energy is to penalise North Sea Oil investment, ban fracking, and our Energy Security minister prioritises selfies with Bill Gates over increasing the energy supply. That is one reason why it is uneconomical to heat polytunnels. If you don't like empty supermarket shelves and cold homes, hows about supporting policies to solve those issues, or at least not clapping like sealions for policies that make them worse.
Anyone that seriously thinks widescale fracking is economically viable in the UK, under any policy regime, has shown they don't really understand energy production.
So no need for a ban then.
That doesn't follow at all. Just because fracking can't achieve widescale viability doesn't mean it can't cause harm in some places.
Honestly, just stop and think through basic logical reasoning before throwing out these knee jerk responses. This is the Twitterization of debate.
I find it quite amusing that you think your pompous evidence-free twaddle stands for the voice of reason. Any fracking activity would need to conform to planning regulations and appropriate safety standards. Any companies operating in the fracking sphere would get no subsidy at all, as opposed to wind farm owners, who get billions of pounds worth in subsidy a year. So where exactly is the harm, in an energy crisis, of lifting a ban that prevents existing wells from being used to extract oil and gas? The ban is a crass anachronism that any Government worthy of the name would have shredded by now.
The whole thing is now an irrelevancy. And anyway they’re too busy with the EU regs nonsense.
I used a bit of "battlefield math" to explain my rationale. 1/16
Very prescient.
IMHO, Russia could still have won had they focused on a couple of fronts with overwhelming force.
With hindsight, it’s reasonably clear that they could have taken a large slug of territory in the east, and held it, if Putin had limited his ambitions. Also if they’d done that, the impetus for western arms supplies would have been less, and the voices for compromise with the dictator, stronger.
But Putin wanted to take the whole country quickly, and wasted some of his better troops and equipment in the abortive attempt on Kyiv.
And I don’t think they could have ‘won’.
IMV it was a damned near-run thing. *If* things had gone differently at Hostomel, then we could be facing a Ukrainian government that is a Belarus-style puppet. If Ukraine had not had the warning, and some intelligence (in all its forms), and some good anti-tank weapons, then it might all look very different now.
Hostomel was key.
Having said that: in the first few days, I believe I stated that even if Russia 'won' Ukraine, they'd have a blooming hard job holding it, and Ukraine would win its independence again eventually. They'd just been too keen to fight Russia's tyranny since 2014 just to give in. At best, Russia would be facing an ongoing insurgency.
Insurgents mostly lose.
Irregular warfare is always the second best alternative to regular warfare.
Insurgents that have the support of the majority of the population hardly ever lose.
That’s the point. Insurgents almost always have to rely upon the backing of just a committed minority, not the majority.
Most people will dislike the occupier, but if the occupier lets them live a tolerable life, while raping their children if they step out of line, most will opt for a quiet life.
An occupier who offers only extermination and enslavement will have a huge fight on their hands.
I'm not sure if it's called 'cognitive dissonance' - I always switch off when I hear 'clever' phrases, but there's definitely yawning a lack of connection, even here on PB, between Government policy, and the outworkings of those policies. Our much vaunted new agricultural policy offers money to farmers to turn vast tracts of land from food production to scrubland. That is food that would once have appeared on supermarket shelves. Our policy on energy is to penalise North Sea Oil investment, ban fracking, and our Energy Security minister prioritises selfies with Bill Gates over increasing the energy supply. That is one reason why it is uneconomical to heat polytunnels. If you don't like empty supermarket shelves and cold homes, hows about supporting policies to solve those issues, or at least not clapping like sealions for policies that make them worse.
Anyone that seriously thinks widescale fracking is economically viable in the UK, under any policy regime, has shown they don't really understand energy production.
So no need for a ban then.
That doesn't follow at all. Just because fracking can't achieve widescale viability doesn't mean it can't cause harm in some places.
Honestly, just stop and think through basic logical reasoning before throwing out these knee jerk responses. This is the Twitterization of debate.
I find it quite amusing that you think your pompous evidence-free twaddle stands for the voice of reason. Any fracking activity would need to conform to planning regulations and appropriate safety standards. Any companies operating in the fracking sphere would get no subsidy at all, as opposed to wind farm owners, who get billions of pounds worth in subsidy a year. So where exactly is the harm, in an energy crisis, of lifting a ban that prevents existing wells from being used to extract oil and gas? The ban is a crass anachronism that any Government worthy of the name would have shredded by now.
The whole thing is now an irrelevancy. And anyway they’re too busy with the EU regs nonsense.
My point was that (aside from Brexit being highlighted as the root of all evil) PBers are fond of complaining about negative externalities, but completely fail to link those externalities with Government policies and direction of travel that are either directly responsible, or will make the situation worse.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
Ghislaine Maxwell fits that statement, yet the government has made no move to strip her of her British citizenship. She has French and USA citizenship to fall back on.
They don't really need to though as she is going to be in a us prison for a long long time so its not needed....begum on the other hand would be proseletying down finsbury park mosque by now if we hadn't
The locals are (rightly) prosecuting her for her crimes, so I don't think that's true.
As far as last I heard they havent prosecuted her in syria yet and she is still in a camp. Good let them prosecute her
The U.K. has asked them not to. They are quite attuned to media, and know that sentencing a U.K. connected person would ignite a firestorm.
Where?
If she were found guilty in a local court, most people would be satisfied.
A Muslim being sentenced in a Yazidi court?
All the human rights lawyers in the U.K. would explode like Lemmings in the old computer game….
I used to love all those lemmings exploding, you have just given me an even better image to imagine
The UN vote is always a good indication of geopolitics.
*Axis of Moonbat* Russia Belarus North Korea Syria Eritrea Mali
*Fence-sitting appeasers* China Iran India South Africa Algeria Angola Armenia Bangladesh Bolivia Burundi Central African Republic Congo Cuba El Salvador Ethiopia Gabon Guinea Kazakhstan Kyrgistan Laos Mongolia Mozambique Namibia Pakistan Sri Lanka Tajikistan Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Vietnam Zimbabwe
Venezuela was a no-show.
The first list is Russian and her satellites and close allies. The second is essentially China, Chinese satellites (Laos, Sri Lanka, much of Africa) and the self-consciously non-aligned (India etc).
Maybe it's early onset Alzheimer's setting in, but I haven't got a clue what anyone is writing about. Exploding lemmings, Landwind X7s, Casino's wife's friend's promise or any post by O Lucky Man.
The UN vote is always a good indication of geopolitics.
*Axis of Moonbat* Russia Belarus North Korea Syria Eritrea Mali
*Fence-sitting appeasers* China Iran India South Africa Algeria Angola Armenia Bangladesh Bolivia Burundi Central African Republic Congo Cuba El Salvador Ethiopia Gabon Guinea Kazakhstan Kyrgistan Laos Mongolia Mozambique Namibia Pakistan Sri Lanka Tajikistan Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Vietnam Zimbabwe
Venezuela was a no-show.
The first list is Russian and her satellites and close allies. The second is essentially China, Chinese satellites (Laos, Sri Lanka, much of Africa) and the self-consciously non-aligned (India etc).
The UN vote is always a good indication of geopolitics.
*Axis of Moonbat* Russia Belarus North Korea Syria Eritrea Mali
*Fence-sitting appeasers* China Iran India South Africa Algeria Angola Armenia Bangladesh Bolivia Burundi Central African Republic Congo Cuba El Salvador Ethiopia Gabon Guinea Kazakhstan Kyrgistan Laos Mongolia Mozambique Namibia Pakistan Sri Lanka Tajikistan Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Vietnam Zimbabwe
Venezuela was a no-show.
The first list is Russian and her satellites and close allies. The second is essentially China, Chinese satellites (Laos, Sri Lanka, much of Africa) and the self-consciously non-aligned (India etc).
China has carved Africa up like a roast.
And making inroads into Latin America, the Pacific, and the Caribbean.
Meanwhile, Britain has basically abolished its international aid budget. The government has reassigned even the reduced spend largely to paying for hotel bills for refugees.
Zero comment on here that Keir has pledged to deliver the “fastest growing economy in the G7”.
That’s quite a hostage to fortune.
Eh, not really. It's eye grabbing and looks bold and optimistic. If it is achieved he's a miracle worker. If he doesn't but it is still good growth are people really going to be that mad?
Comments
The power resides with the nation states. USA primarily? If it's a role where he doesn't really have anything to do other than posturing and strutting around the world stage showing off he'd probably be quite good at that lol?
Hostomel was key.
Having said that: in the first few days, I believe I stated that even if Russia 'won' Ukraine, they'd have a blooming hard job holding it, and Ukraine would win its independence again eventually. They'd just been too keen to fight Russia's tyranny since 2014 just to give in. At best, Russia would be facing an ongoing insurgency.
At the time this seemed like a baffling choice, but now it appears that it was because the Russians simply aren't capable of such an air campaign. They don't have the target-acquisition intelligence, and they don't have the air-fighting training, to make such a campaign remotely possible. And so they haven't even been able to make a serious attempt at intercepting the supply of Western weaponry as it crosses western Ukraine.
On the lack of (mainly) tomatoes, it’s seems clear that there are lots of factors, including poor weather in certain countries, energy costs in the U.K., poor planning by shops and, yes, Brexit. But I’m sick and tired of the facile, ‘it’s Brexit, stupid’ approach. Brexit is still so divisive, so polarised that there is no point in debating. Positions are more entrenched than the Western Front in 1916. There is no argument that will move either side.
More interesting are the arguments between Wagner/Prigozhin and the real army, and the rumours that Russia are bringing the BTR-50 back into service. This was developed in the early 1950s, and the last ones were built in 1970. They're better than nothing, but they're also a sign of desperation.
https://defence-blog.com/russia-to-deploy-vintage-btr-50-tracked-carriers-to-ukraine/
The problem was they didn't have a Plan B for when it didn't work. In that case they would have done better going for a lower risk strategy eg limited to the Donbas.
Might write a thread header about it.
The students were the cleaners
We were divided into six "Houses", but they didn't determine where we slept; they just put us into teams for sports and cleaning. We had to sweep the wooden floors of all the classrooms, changing rooms, assembly rooms and corridors of the school, and empty all the bins
The headmaster or his wife would inspect the whole school every evening and we'd be marked on the cleanliness and tidiness. If your area was shitty, you'd have to go for a run in the morning
At the end of the term the House with the best overall score won a prize. I think the prize was that you got to get first choice of seats at the end of term film and a special snack
Did anybody else have to clean their school?
Performative liberal wank is exactly the strategy.
She also slapped me across the face.
My lifestyle choice did not go down well.
If he's a Trout, then surely we should all be backing him as SNP leader?
But in Taiwan everyone, including the teachers, lay on the floor for an hour's kip afterwards.
Paging DfE for possible strike solutions.
Irregular warfare is always the second best alternative to regular warfare.
The Jamaicans have the best expression:
“He is devil pic’ney.”
https://twitter.com/marqs__/status/1628860133873704960?s=61&t=aqEQe6mM1GzrptlmeJSPVQ
Honestly, just stop and think through basic logical reasoning before throwing out these knee jerk responses. This is the Twitterization of debate.
I think we got away with it.
If she were found guilty in a local court, most people would be satisfied.
Vlad will have to send them back and ask for a refund.
Not of course that they care about safeguarding or Spielman wouldn't be running OFSTED.
They were clothed for lunch.
All the human rights lawyers in the U.K. would explode like Lemmings in the old computer game….
And anyway they’re too busy with the EU regs nonsense.
Most people will dislike the occupier, but if the occupier lets them live a tolerable life, while raping their children if they step out of line, most will opt for a quiet life.
An occupier who offers only extermination and enslavement will have a huge fight on their hands.
Horny as hell. My wife - one of her friends - was loathe to even introduce me to her.
This thread has been invaded by Putin!
*Axis of Moonbat*
Russia
Belarus
North Korea
Syria
Eritrea
Mali
*Fence-sitting appeasers*
China
Iran
India
South Africa
Algeria
Angola
Armenia
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Burundi
Central African Republic
Congo
Cuba
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Gabon
Guinea
Kazakhstan
Kyrgistan
Laos
Mongolia
Mozambique
Namibia
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Tajikistan
Togo
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Zimbabwe
Venezuela was a no-show.
The first list is Russian and her satellites and close allies. The second is essentially China, Chinese satellites (Laos, Sri Lanka, much of Africa) and the self-consciously non-aligned (India etc).
Meanwhile, Britain has basically abolished its international aid budget. The government has reassigned even the reduced spend largely to paying for hotel bills for refugees.