The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.
It seems there are the following outcomes
1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.
2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.
3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.
4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.
5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...
I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.
I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.
How is 1 more dangerous than 5?
I think we don't get to 1 without 5.
So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.
But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.
All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.
There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.
The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.
And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.
Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.
You know that he will - at some point - die, right?
That's true of all of us.
He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.
But ultimately, your argument is specious:
"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"
My argument is a very simple one.
We have a very unpredictable war.
You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.
And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.
You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.
First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).
Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.
And you need to stop thinking that the next five minutes are all that matters.
If nuclear blackmail works then sure, you've survived this crisis, but you've made another one much more likely.
That is why, even though there is a risk of nuclear annihalition, standing up to naked aggression and standing up to - yes - evil is necessary.
In your mind, you see the Eastern Ukrainians as secretly Russian, and secretly desirous of Russian victory. This delusion, and it is a delusion, leads you into all kinds of false equivalance, and leads you to support a regime doing terrible, terrible things on our doorstep.
If we don't stand up to this, we ensure that there will be a next time.
You somehow think me dangerous, when it is your appeasement that is the true danger. War may be unpredictable, but rewarding unchecked aggression is pretty much guaranteed to have suboptimal outcomes.
All I have done is point out that there is a Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.
That is because -- you may have noticed -- whenever there is a border, there are some minorities on the other side of it. It is in fact a pretty fucking ubiquitous phenomenon.
Other than that, your post is Boris bluster.
You know nothing about my views. As evidence, only the other day, you were gaily posting slanderous stuff about me being anti-vax and pro-invermectin.
I made one mistaken post, about which I apologized, and immediately retracted after I was corrected.
If you want to slander me, be my guest.
As for not knowing your views, I think everybody knows your views. Your views are that "both sides" need to make concessions. Unless, my reading your post has led me to be mistaken about your views.
Your delusion, and it is a delusion, is to continually mistake "Russian speaking" with Russian.
As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.
This is a hyper Western perspective. The prevalent view in Russia, whether onboard with Putin's nationalist autocracy or not, is that the SMO is Russia fighting for its survival. You might think they are all wrong and you might be right but it doesn't change the characterisation and perspective of the SMO inside Russia. This isn't their Suez where they can just pack it in when it gets hard and retreat to a humbled, diminished yet intact status.
Nevertheless, at some point the cost of continuing the invasion becomes greater than the cost of abandoning it.
The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.
It seems there are the following outcomes
1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.
2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.
3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.
4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.
5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...
I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.
I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.
How is 1 more dangerous than 5?
I think we don't get to 1 without 5.
So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.
But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.
All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.
There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.
The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.
And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.
Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.
You know that he will - at some point - die, right?
That's true of all of us.
He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.
But ultimately, your argument is specious:
"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"
My argument is a very simple one.
We have a very unpredictable war.
You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.
And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.
You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.
First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).
Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.
And you need to stop thinking that the next five minutes are all that matters.
If nuclear blackmail works then sure, you've survived this crisis, but you've made another one much more likely.
That is why, even though there is a risk of nuclear annihalition, standing up to naked aggression and standing up to - yes - evil is necessary.
In your mind, you see the Eastern Ukrainians as secretly Russian, and secretly desirous of Russian victory. This delusion, and it is a delusion, leads you into all kinds of false equivalance, and leads you to support a regime doing terrible, terrible things on our doorstep.
If we don't stand up to this, we ensure that there will be a next time.
You somehow think me dangerous, when it is your appeasement that is the true danger. War may be unpredictable, but rewarding unchecked aggression is pretty much guaranteed to have suboptimal outcomes.
All I have done is point out that there is a Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.
There are many different ethnic populations in Ukraine all of whom were added to it without their consent.
Lenin added the eastern Russian provinces in the 1920s after the civil war. Stalin put the previously Polish western provinces (Lviv, etc.) into Ukraine after WW2. To shut Krushchev up Stalin added Chernivitsi which was previously Romanian. Krushchev still wouldn't shut the fuck up so Stalin added the Odessa oblast to Ukraine. Stalin took Transcarpathia from Hungary and lego'ed that on to Ukraine after WW2 but that appears to be his own idea. When Krushchev took over he transferred Crimea to Ukraine.
So you've got millions of people who identified as Russian, Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian being forcibly added to Ukraine without consultation or consent. This all held together when they were part of the Soviet Union but without that central dominance it was inevitably going to fall apart in bloody and spectacular fashion.
The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.
It seems there are the following outcomes
1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.
2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.
3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.
4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.
5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...
I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.
I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.
How is 1 more dangerous than 5?
I think we don't get to 1 without 5.
So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.
But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.
All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.
There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.
The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.
And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.
Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.
You know that he will - at some point - die, right?
That's true of all of us.
He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.
But ultimately, your argument is specious:
"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"
My argument is a very simple one.
We have a very unpredictable war.
You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.
And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.
You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.
First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).
Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.
And you need to stop thinking that the next five minutes are all that matters.
If nuclear blackmail works then sure, you've survived this crisis, but you've made another one much more likely.
That is why, even though there is a risk of nuclear annihalition, standing up to naked aggression and standing up to - yes - evil is necessary.
In your mind, you see the Eastern Ukrainians as secretly Russian, and secretly desirous of Russian victory. This delusion, and it is a delusion, leads you into all kinds of false equivalance, and leads you to support a regime doing terrible, terrible things on our doorstep.
If we don't stand up to this, we ensure that there will be a next time.
You somehow think me dangerous, when it is your appeasement that is the true danger. War may be unpredictable, but rewarding unchecked aggression is pretty much guaranteed to have suboptimal outcomes.
All I have done is point out that there is a Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.
There are many different ethnic populations in Ukraine all of whom were added to it without their consent.
Lenin added the eastern Russian provinces in the 1920s after the civil war. Stalin put the previously Polish western provinces (Lviv, etc.) into Ukraine after WW2. To shut Krushchev up Stalin added Chernivitsi which was previously Romanian. Krushchev still wouldn't shut the fuck up so Stalin added the Odessa oblast to Ukraine. Stalin took Transcarpathia from Hungary and lego'ed that on to Ukraine after WW2 but that appears to be his own idea. When Krushchev took over he transferred Crimea to Ukraine.
So you've got millions of people who identified as Russian, Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian being forcibly added to Ukraine without consultation or consent. This all held together when they were part of the Soviet Union but without that central dominance it was inevitably going to fall apart in bloody and spectacular fashion.
I question your use of 'inevitable', given its only fallen apart in bloody and spectacular fashion as a result of external invasion.
Yes there was clearly some major issues arising even without that invasion in 2014 hence why there was support in areas like Crimea in particular, but your post seems to presume it would be just as bad even without it and I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.
There are surely degrees of internal tensions, all countries are artificial when you get right down to it and rarely have 100% support for their existence, and even in places with significant tensions or artificiality do not 'inevitably' fall apart in so bloody a way. Without outside help.
As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.
This is a hyper Western perspective. The prevalent view in Russia, whether onboard with Putin's nationalist autocracy or not, is that the SMO is Russia fighting for its survival. You might think they are all wrong and you might be right but it doesn't change the characterisation and perspective of the SMO inside Russia. This isn't their Suez where they can just pack it in when it gets hard and retreat to a humbled, diminished yet intact status.
Nevertheless, at some point the cost of continuing the invasion becomes greater than the cost of abandoning it.
The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.
It seems there are the following outcomes
1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.
2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.
3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.
4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.
5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...
I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.
I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.
How is 1 more dangerous than 5?
I think we don't get to 1 without 5.
So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.
But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.
All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.
There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.
The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.
And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.
Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.
You know that he will - at some point - die, right?
That's true of all of us.
He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.
But ultimately, your argument is specious:
"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"
My argument is a very simple one.
We have a very unpredictable war.
You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.
And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.
You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.
First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).
Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.
And you need to stop thinking that the next five minutes are all that matters.
If nuclear blackmail works then sure, you've survived this crisis, but you've made another one much more likely.
That is why, even though there is a risk of nuclear annihalition, standing up to naked aggression and standing up to - yes - evil is necessary.
In your mind, you see the Eastern Ukrainians as secretly Russian, and secretly desirous of Russian victory. This delusion, and it is a delusion, leads you into all kinds of false equivalance, and leads you to support a regime doing terrible, terrible things on our doorstep.
If we don't stand up to this, we ensure that there will be a next time.
You somehow think me dangerous, when it is your appeasement that is the true danger. War may be unpredictable, but rewarding unchecked aggression is pretty much guaranteed to have suboptimal outcomes.
All I have done is point out that there is a Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.
There are many different ethnic populations in Ukraine all of whom were added to it without their consent.
Lenin added the eastern Russian provinces in the 1920s after the civil war. Stalin put the previously Polish western provinces (Lviv, etc.) into Ukraine after WW2. To shut Krushchev up Stalin added Chernivitsi which was previously Romanian. Krushchev still wouldn't shut the fuck up so Stalin added the Odessa oblast to Ukraine. Stalin took Transcarpathia from Hungary and lego'ed that on to Ukraine after WW2 but that appears to be his own idea.
Transcarpathia was actually nicked by Hungary off of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Chernivtsi, and Izmail down in the south, were indeed Romanian 1918-1940 but were actually majority Ukrainian.
The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.
It seems there are the following outcomes
1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.
2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.
3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.
4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.
5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...
I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.
I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.
How is 1 more dangerous than 5?
I think we don't get to 1 without 5.
So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.
But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.
All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.
There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.
The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.
And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.
Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.
You know that he will - at some point - die, right?
That's true of all of us.
He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.
But ultimately, your argument is specious:
"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"
My argument is a very simple one.
We have a very unpredictable war.
You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.
And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.
You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.
First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).
Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.
And you need to stop thinking that the next five minutes are all that matters.
If nuclear blackmail works then sure, you've survived this crisis, but you've made another one much more likely.
That is why, even though there is a risk of nuclear annihalition, standing up to naked aggression and standing up to - yes - evil is necessary.
In your mind, you see the Eastern Ukrainians as secretly Russian, and secretly desirous of Russian victory. This delusion, and it is a delusion, leads you into all kinds of false equivalance, and leads you to support a regime doing terrible, terrible things on our doorstep.
If we don't stand up to this, we ensure that there will be a next time.
You somehow think me dangerous, when it is your appeasement that is the true danger. War may be unpredictable, but rewarding unchecked aggression is pretty much guaranteed to have suboptimal outcomes.
All I have done is point out that there is a Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.
There are many different ethnic populations in Ukraine all of whom were added to it without their consent.
Lenin added the eastern Russian provinces in the 1920s after the civil war. Stalin put the previously Polish western provinces (Lviv, etc.) into Ukraine after WW2. To shut Krushchev up Stalin added Chernivitsi which was previously Romanian. Krushchev still wouldn't shut the fuck up so Stalin added the Odessa oblast to Ukraine. Stalin took Transcarpathia from Hungary and lego'ed that on to Ukraine after WW2 but that appears to be his own idea. When Krushchev took over he transferred Crimea to Ukraine.
So you've got millions of people who identified as Russian, Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian being forcibly added to Ukraine without consultation or consent. This all held together when they were part of the Soviet Union but without that central dominance it was inevitably going to fall apart in bloody and spectacular fashion.
Its ability to maintain unity in the face of external aggression must have come as a surprise to you.
As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.
This is a hyper Western perspective. The prevalent view in Russia, whether onboard with Putin's nationalist autocracy or not, is that the SMO is Russia fighting for its survival. You might think they are all wrong and you might be right but it doesn't change the characterisation and perspective of the SMO inside Russia. This isn't their Suez where they can just pack it in when it gets hard and retreat to a humbled, diminished yet intact status.
Nevertheless, at some point the cost of continuing the invasion becomes greater than the cost of abandoning it.
Afaics the sunk cost fallacy revolves mainly around the spenders realising they’ve fucked it far too late.
As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.
This is a hyper Western perspective. The prevalent view in Russia, whether onboard with Putin's nationalist autocracy or not, is that the SMO is Russia fighting for its survival. You might think they are all wrong and you might be right but it doesn't change the characterisation and perspective of the SMO inside Russia. This isn't their Suez where they can just pack it in when it gets hard and retreat to a humbled, diminished yet intact status.
Nevertheless, at some point the cost of continuing the invasion becomes greater than the cost of abandoning it.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
I appreciate he has to write nonsense like this to sell copy and afford a summer holiday, but there has to be limits to making yourself look completely stupid.
Those Christians who agree with Kates views are speaking up on her behalf, those Christians who disagree with her speaking up explaining why, shows us Christian Church always always been about politics, and protest, rethinking things through and struggle for reform. Christianity is about love and more love and doing love better. I don’t want to lift it from W1A, but Christianity has always been about doing the same thing better.
This is why I used the Thomas More example in reply to Algykirk as the smoking gun he said didn’t exist on same sex marriage argument - at his trial Thomas More accused them as going against a tried and tested religion that had stood for a thousand years. History. Tradition. Strong and Stable. Even today some people still think about Christianity in same rubbish way Thomas More saw it. Strong and Stable though he needed a torture chamber in his house.
This is, if Kate or her critics was now in past history of UK or even other parts of the world today, they would be assassinated now. Being Christian is not about signing up to Jam and Jerusalem, it’s about signing up to discussion and thought, protest and argument. Based on this view, I always add lots of key questions to ask in my Sunday School lessons. For example the difference between Monergism and Synergism: do you think regeneration of people is work of God through Holy Spirit alone, or do we have to cooperate with God's grace in order to be born again as new. Very key thinking between much protest and split in Christianity.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
Ooops, my bad. Chernivtsi is actually 75% Ukrainian, 20% Romanian, 4% Russian.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
Ooops, my bad. Chernivtsi is actually 75% Ukrainian, 20% Romanian, 4% Russian.
I think Sunil just learned Dura Ace! Truly an historic moment.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
What about Cossacks? Were they a people, but without their own state? Did they get wiped out or just forcibly shunted off somewhere?
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
Ooops, my bad. Chernivtsi is actually 75% Ukrainian, 20% Romanian, 4% Russian.
I think Sunil just learned Dura Ace! Truly an historic moment.
The idea that Ukraine is some kind of Yugoslavia in the making is quite eccentric.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
Ooops, my bad. Chernivtsi is actually 75% Ukrainian, 20% Romanian, 4% Russian.
I think Sunil just learned Dura Ace! Truly an historic moment.
The idea that Ukraine is some kind of Yugoslavia in the making is quite eccentric.
The thing being the Balkan conflicts is they are one thing in one town, another in the next town? So it’s all a messy ethnic, religious nationalist mess?
That already appears to have happened in Ukraine. In 1939 the population of Lyiv was 50% Polish and used cover of the war to beat up the Ukrainians and vice versa 🙁
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
What about Cossacks? Were they a people, but without their own state? Did they get wiped out or just forcibly shunted off somewhere?
Not sure!
"Because of the lack of consensus on how to define Cossacks, accurate numbers are not available. According to the Russian Census of 2010, 67,573 people identify as ethnic Cossack in Russia.[139]"
And then it goes:
"Between 3.5 and 5 million people associate themselves with the Cossack identity in Europe and across the world.[5][6]"
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
What about Cossacks? Were they a people, but without their own state? Did they get wiped out or just forcibly shunted off somewhere?
Not sure!
"Because of the lack of consensus on how to define Cossacks, accurate numbers are not available. According to the Russian Census of 2010, 67,573 people identify as ethnic Cossack in Russia.[139]"
And then it goes:
"Between 3.5 and 5 million people associate themselves with the Cossack identity in Europe and across the world.[5][6]"
I appreciate he has to write nonsense like this to sell copy and afford a summer holiday, but there has to be limits to making yourself look completely stupid.
Those Christians who agree with Kates views are speaking up on her behalf, those Christians who disagree with her speaking up explaining why, shows us Christian Church always always been about politics, and protest, rethinking things through and struggle for reform. Christianity is about love and more love and doing love better. I don’t want to lift it from W1A, but Christianity has always been about doing the same thing better.
This is why I used the Thomas More example in reply to Algykirk as the smoking gun he said didn’t exist on same sex marriage argument - at his trial Thomas More accused them as going against a tried and tested religion that had stood for a thousand years. History. Tradition. Strong and Stable. Even today some people still think about Christianity in same rubbish way Thomas More saw it. Strong and Stable though he needed a torture chamber in his house.
This is, if Kate or her critics was now in past history of UK or even other parts of the world today, they would be assassinated now. Being Christian is not about signing up to Jam and Jerusalem, it’s about signing up to discussion and thought, protest and argument. Based on this view, I always add lots of key questions to ask in my Sunday School lessons. For example the difference between Monergism and Synergism: do you think regeneration of people is work of God through Holy Spirit alone, or do we have to cooperate with God's grace in order to be born again as new. Very key thinking between much protest and split in Christianity.
Where Fraser Nelson is so wrong, is so so easy to explain. Christian critics of her views like me, I disagree with Kate Forbes but I don’t want to see her made a victim for her views. I want to talk it through with her because I believe I can save her soul. That’s what Christianity is.
If you think that opinion is patronising, then think of the children Kate Forbes is having, What would it be like for a gay person to grow up with parents with views like that? Happy? Unhappy? the important thing to remember is Kate and all her supporters are all completely wrong becuase gay isn’t a cultural thing you get into at university, like board gaming, Maoism or Jack Kerouac.
I’m living in the positive side to all this arguing, either defending or protesting against Kate’s views on sex, marriage and sexual identity, its so brilliant for our politics and Christianity really - this the energy and stage needed to tackle head on the prejudicial feelings people feel individually or part of a culture, and making those horrid prejudicial things go away for good. Look how Paul moved on way to Damascus. Christianity has always been about how to move closer to a world of love, and fact that all people who still think like Kate Forbes and Thomas More are losing this, them and their prejudicial feelings getting exorcised like bad sprits, means this is more a world of love now, than ever ever before 🥰
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.
It seems there are the following outcomes
1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.
2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.
3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.
4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.
5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...
I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.
I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.
How is 1 more dangerous than 5?
I think we don't get to 1 without 5.
So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.
But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.
All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.
There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.
The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.
And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.
Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.
You know that he will - at some point - die, right?
That's true of all of us.
He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.
But ultimately, your argument is specious:
"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"
My argument is a very simple one.
We have a very unpredictable war.
You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.
And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.
You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.
First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).
Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.
And you need to stop thinking that the next five minutes are all that matters.
If nuclear blackmail works then sure, you've survived this crisis, but you've made another one much more likely.
That is why, even though there is a risk of nuclear annihalition, standing up to naked aggression and standing up to - yes - evil is necessary.
In your mind, you see the Eastern Ukrainians as secretly Russian, and secretly desirous of Russian victory. This delusion, and it is a delusion, leads you into all kinds of false equivalance, and leads you to support a regime doing terrible, terrible things on our doorstep.
If we don't stand up to this, we ensure that there will be a next time.
You somehow think me dangerous, when it is your appeasement that is the true danger. War may be unpredictable, but rewarding unchecked aggression is pretty much guaranteed to have suboptimal outcomes.
All I have done is point out that there is a Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.
There are many different ethnic populations in Ukraine all of whom were added to it without their consent.
Lenin added the eastern Russian provinces in the 1920s after the civil war. Stalin put the previously Polish western provinces (Lviv, etc.) into Ukraine after WW2. To shut Krushchev up Stalin added Chernivitsi which was previously Romanian. Krushchev still wouldn't shut the fuck up so Stalin added the Odessa oblast to Ukraine. Stalin took Transcarpathia from Hungary and lego'ed that on to Ukraine after WW2 but that appears to be his own idea. When Krushchev took over he transferred Crimea to Ukraine.
So you've got millions of people who identified as Russian, Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian being forcibly added to Ukraine without consultation or consent. This all held together when they were part of the Soviet Union but without that central dominance it was inevitably going to fall apart in bloody and spectacular fashion.
Nothing inevitable about it. Also, to quibble, it's not true that all of Ukraine's different ethnic populations were added either by the Soviet empire, or in some cases without their consent. The history of the region that's now Ukraine is a great deal older than the failed communist experiment - and for that matter, extends beyond it. And as a matter of fact, the efforts of Russia to subvert independent Ukraine, and the subsequent invasion, have forged a much stronger modern national identity.
Suggestions that Russia is preparing false flag operations on the Belarusian border to bring Belarus into the war.
That's been the case since almost the start of this. The more recent talk, true or not, is that Putin intends to annexe Belarus.
The big factor is Belarussian public opinion, its only a few years ago that the country was wracked by political upheaval as democratising groups pushed for reform, I;m no expert but I dont sense an appetite or enthusiasm from Belarus's people to join, its an escalation no-one wants/needs
As I said yesterday, a civil war looms fuelled by faux outrage over the NI protocol deal but more about big dog's greed for power, and a simmering schism over who owns the Party
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
Identities? We all have multiple identities.
DuraAce has a point, though. Thx region has a more complicated and contested history than most, even if you can make dimilar comments about much if central and Eastern Europe. It's just that I think he's wrong in the conclusions he draws. The fact that it's been a plaything of the Russian empire is probably more a force for unification against such a repeated fate than any ethnic divisions (which I think he exaggerates) are a force for disintegration.
Before I tootle off to bed, I need to address one of the really idiotic shibboleths that has taken hold on PB in the last couple of days:
For Russia, this is a fight for survival
What absolute absurd, and ridiculous bunkum.
If Russia pulls out of Ukraine then, for the average Russian, nothing changes. Except, perhaps, they don't mourn the death of friends and family, and goods are more available in stores. But nothing bad, fundamentally, happens except perhaps that Russia's standing falls in the world. (Something pretty fucking low on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.)
If the Ukrainians give in, by contrast, total fucking shit happens. We've already seen what's happened in the East (although @YBarddCwsc would like to pretend that "both sides" are somehow to blame), with rapes, extrajudicial murders and the abduction and forced resettlement in Russia of children.
Russia's existence is not threatened. Ukraine will not be marching on Moscow. Fuck, before Russia invaded there wasn't a chance in hell that Ukraine would even have been marching into the Crimea or the Donbas.
This is not a war of survival for Russia, it is a war of conquest. Those who seek to defend or excuse it should be ashamed of themselves.
Before I tootle off to bed, I need to address one of the really idiotic shibboleths that has taken hold on PB in the last couple of days:
For Russia, this is a fight for survival
What absolute absurd, and ridiculous bunkum.
If Russia pulls out of Ukraine then, for the average Russian, nothing changes. Except, perhaps, they don't mourn the death of friends and family, and goods are more available in stores. But nothing bad, fundamentally, happens except perhaps that Russia's standing falls in the world. (Something pretty fucking low on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.)
If the Ukrainians give in, by contrast, total fucking shit happens. We've already seen what's happened in the East (although @YBarddCwsc would like to pretend that "both sides" are somehow to blame), with rapes, extrajudicial murders and the abduction and forced resettlement in Russia of children.
Russia's existence is not threatened. Ukraine will not be marching on Moscow. Fuck, before Russia invaded there wasn't a chance in hell that Ukraine would even have been marching into the Crimea or the Donbas.
This is not a war of survival for Russia, it is a war of conquest. Those who seek to defend or excuse it should be ashamed of themselves.
I think the point was not so much that it really is a war of survival for Russia, but that it has been sold with varying degrees of success to the man on the Moscow omnibus as such.
ETA the SMO might also now be a war of survival for the current Russian government. L'etat, c'est Putin.
It used to be fairly easy to listen to TMS abroad, with even the BBC advising how to do it sometimes. But now it seems like they've made it much more difficult.
Is TMS or any other BBC outlet commentating on this test? I could find only the text commentary earlier.
Before I tootle off to bed, I need to address one of the really idiotic shibboleths that has taken hold on PB in the last couple of days:
For Russia, this is a fight for survival
What absolute absurd, and ridiculous bunkum.
If Russia pulls out of Ukraine then, for the average Russian, nothing changes. Except, perhaps, they don't mourn the death of friends and family, and goods are more available in stores. But nothing bad, fundamentally, happens except perhaps that Russia's standing falls in the world. (Something pretty fucking low on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.)
If the Ukrainians give in, by contrast, total fucking shit happens. We've already seen what's happened in the East (although @YBarddCwsc would like to pretend that "both sides" are somehow to blame), with rapes, extrajudicial murders and the abduction and forced resettlement in Russia of children.
Russia's existence is not threatened. Ukraine will not be marching on Moscow. Fuck, before Russia invaded there wasn't a chance in hell that Ukraine would even have been marching into the Crimea or the Donbas.
This is not a war of survival for Russia, it is a war of conquest. Those who seek to defend or excuse it should be ashamed of themselves.
I think the point was not so much that it really is a war of survival for Russia, but that it has been sold with varying degrees of success to the man on the Moscow omnibus as such.
ETA the SMO might also now be a war of survival for the current Russian government. L'etat, c'est Putin.
But it's not though. We have already seen how Putin doesn't have full freedom of action. Putin is not Louis XIV, but Louis XVI, circa 1788.
Hello World! 🌎 At Clone, we are making synthetic humans, starting with a 1:1 copy of the human hand. Here’s the Clone Hand’s first manipulation demonstration, manually preprogrammed in a few hours! https://twitter.com/dhanushisrad/status/1628497852124258305
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
Ooops, my bad. Chernivtsi is actually 75% Ukrainian, 20% Romanian, 4% Russian.
I think Sunil just learned Dura Ace! Truly an historic moment.
The idea that Ukraine is some kind of Yugoslavia in the making is quite eccentric.
As far as Dura Ace goes his position is the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Kate Forbes is the most popular candidate to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister despite the row over her religious beliefs, a poll of SNP supporters has found.
Scots who voted for the Nationalists at the 2021 Holyrood election were questioned on who they think should replace her as party leader - with almost a third (31 per cent) of those questioned said they do not yet know who to back.
But 28 per cent said they support Forbes - putting her ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan, who polled 20 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
Hello World! 🌎 At Clone, we are making synthetic humans, starting with a 1:1 copy of the human hand. Here’s the Clone Hand’s first manipulation demonstration, manually preprogrammed in a few hours! https://twitter.com/dhanushisrad/status/1628497852124258305
Never mind Terminator; as seen in The Big Bang Theory, a hand is all you need for a sex robot.
‘If Kate Forbes or Ash Regan were to win, a very large and serpentine gravy train would grind to a halt and a lot of professional spongers would be invited to hop off’: my column in The National
Kate Forbes is the most popular candidate to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister despite the row over her religious beliefs, a poll of SNP supporters has found.
Scots who voted for the Nationalists at the 2021 Holyrood election were questioned on who they think should replace her as party leader - with almost a third (31 per cent) of those questioned said they do not yet know who to back.
But 28 per cent said they support Forbes - putting her ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan, who polled 20 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
Ooops, my bad. Chernivtsi is actually 75% Ukrainian, 20% Romanian, 4% Russian.
I think Sunil just learned Dura Ace! Truly an historic moment.
The idea that Ukraine is some kind of Yugoslavia in the making is quite eccentric.
As far as Dura Ace goes his position is the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
You take that too far, and before long you'll be inviting Liberal Democrats into your home, and that never ends well.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
It may be true, but it might also be essentially redundant. Zelenskyy himself grew up as a Russian speaker, as did many other Ukrainians fighting Russia. It is perfectly possible to hold multiple identities; in the same way I see myself as both English and British. If I wanted, I'd probably add 'barely human' as an identity I hold as well.
Your argument also seems rather fanciful as the appetite to beat the Russians does not seem to be massively weak amongst the Ukrainians. True, we might be getting biased media coverage over here, but the will to fight amongst the Ukrainians seems strong, regardless of their underlying ethnicity, or even religion.
The hilarious thing about this war (and there is precious little to find humorous in this tragedy) is that Russia's invasions in 2014 and 2022 have created a Ukrainian founding legend. Before this, Ukraine in modern times has always been the victim, fought over by those to the west and the east, split, divided and reformed by outside actors. In this war, they're creating a mythos that may well unite these disparate peoples.
Their grandparents may have come from Russia, or Crimea, or Poland, or Romanian; but *they* are Ukrainian.
Even if you don't like Boris Johnson, it's hard to disagree with the following:
" Johnson was awakened by a call from one of his advisers. The British prime minister responded with an obscenity directed at Putin: “That f---ing c---.”
"I was disgusted by Putin. I was disgusted by what he was doing. I was nauseated by his language, by his lies, by his aggression, by his condescension toward Ukraine. I thought the whole thing was repellent, arrogant, chauvinistic, wrong."
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
It may be true, but it might also be essentially redundant. Zelenskyy himself grew up as a Russian speaker, as did many other Ukrainians fighting Russia. .
The linguistic picture is very mixed...
Zelensky is a native Russian speaker and affects a very cultured accent in which terminal vowel sounds are rounded from /ɒ/ to /ɑ/ deliberately to sound like a Muscovite. I have never heard him not do this.
When he speaks Ukrainian it's with a very weird staccato accent that avoids palatisation and uses many obscure words and recently invented neologisms. The overall impression is the same as Jacob Rees-Mogg doing a press conference in a Geordie accent. Why aye, my good chap.
He uses "official" Ukrainian which is the language as it is spoken in the Cherkasy oblast and is basically Malorussian with some Polish loan words. The West-Ukranian dialog is more widespread and is a peasant's tongue mainly used for haggling over stolen tractor parts. It is, in some sense, a synthetic language invented by Ukrainian nationalists in the late 19th C. with extensive Polonisation. Finally, there is a Carpathian dialect with elements from the languages of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
In almost all of the videos of AFU forces at the front they are speaking Surzhyk which is a sociolectic combination of Russian and West Ukranian much favoured by the lower socioeconomic and criminal classes of Donbas and Ukraine.
Even if you don't like Boris Johnson, it's hard to disagree with the following:
" Johnson was awakened by a call from one of his advisers. The British prime minister responded with an obscenity directed at Putin: “That f---ing c---.”
"I was disgusted by Putin. I was disgusted by what he was doing. I was nauseated by his language, by his lies, by his aggression, by his condescension toward Ukraine. I thought the whole thing was repellent, arrogant, chauvinistic, wrong."
There are some great, very human anecdotes:
At some point that first day, the president gathered us all together. There were a lot of us in that bunker — maybe 120 people including the security guards. He said, ‘Look, we’re staying. From tomorrow, it may be that we don’t have a chance to leave. Everyone has their own life and needs to make a decision for themselves. Choose to either stay or go somewhere safer.’ … The whole situation felt like a dream, so I went to another room and called my wife. I said that we can make a choice right now. … She answered me very clearly — maybe with some humor — that she’d rather tell our kids that I was a hero once than a deserter many times.….
Those first hours, we asked what information to give people and [Lt. Gen. Yevhen] Moisiuk told me to tell everyone, ‘Kill the occupiers!’ And that was it.
Early polls on @theSNP leadership suggest our supporters value integrity & care more about bread & butter issues & #independence than people’s personal beliefs. I’m looking forward to helping @AshReganSNP launch today.
That's a good theory. Except as North Korea shows, it's perfectly possible for a state to descend down to a consistently inward-looking, war-ready, poverty-ridden state for decades. Russia could choose that route, and there is little we could do about it.
Fortunately, plenty of people in Russia *do* care about money.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
It may be true, but it might also be essentially redundant. Zelenskyy himself grew up as a Russian speaker, as did many other Ukrainians fighting Russia. .
The linguistic picture is very mixed...
Zelensky is a native Russian speaker and affects a very cultured accent in which terminal vowel sounds are rounded from /ɒ/ to /ɑ/ deliberately to sound like a Muscovite. I have never heard him not do this.
When he speaks Ukrainian it's with a very weird staccato accent that avoids palatisation and uses many obscure words and recently invented neologisms. The overall impression is the same as Jacob Rees-Mogg doing a press conference in a Geordie accent. Why aye, my good chap.
He uses "official" Ukrainian which is the language as it is spoken in the Cherkasy oblast and is basically Malorussian with some Polish loan words. The West-Ukranian dialog is more widespread and is a peasant's tongue mainly used for haggling over stolen tractor parts. It is, in some sense, a synthetic language invented by Ukrainian nationalists in the late 19th C. with extensive Polonisation. Finally, there is a Carpathian dialect with elements from the languages of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
In almost all of the videos of AFU forces at the front they are speaking Surzhyk which is a sociolectic combination of Russian and West Ukranian much favoured by the lower socioeconomic and criminal classes of Donbas and Ukraine.
But it's not just about linguistics, is it?
(And I like your addition of 'criminal classes' at the end. I hope you'd refer to a Muscovite accent as being 'mass-murdering scumbags' as well, just for balance.)
I would just like to note that @Dura_Ace may have some generally... odd... views, but on residual values of vehicles, he is unparalleled.
Back in 2018, I bought a Porsche from a dealer in California. They'd has a buyer pull out, and I negotiated hard, and paid a reasonable amount less than list.
I've just sold it back, to another Porsche dealer, after five years of very enjoyable driving, for almost 90% of what I paid. My per month price has been less than a Toyota Prius.
That's a good theory. Except as North Korea shows, it's perfectly possible for a state to descend down to a consistently inward-looking, war-ready, poverty-ridden state for decades. Russia could choose that route, and there is little we could do about it.
Fortunately, plenty of people in Russia *do* care about money.
I would just like to note that @Dura_Ace may have some generally... odd... views, but on residual values of vehicles, he is unparalleled.
Back in 2018, I bought a Porsche from a dealer in California. They'd has a buyer pull out, and I negotiated hard, and paid a reasonable amount less than list.
I've just sold it back, to another Porsche dealer, after five years of very enjoyable driving, for almost 90% of what I paid. My per month price has been less than a Toyota Prius.
I sold a Skoda Rapid at the start of this month for only £900 less than I paid for it. But I hadn’t kept it for five years even if I had clocked 40,000 miles in it.
That's a good theory. Except as North Korea shows, it's perfectly possible for a state to descend down to a consistently inward-looking, war-ready, poverty-ridden state for decades. Russia could choose that route, and there is little we could do about it.
Fortunately, plenty of people in Russia *do* care about money.
Is the west still buying Russian hydrocarbons?
Some, yes. But in much reduced, and reducing, quantities. AIUI there are exceptions, even in the EU: e,g, Hungary, Bulgaria, Crotia, are being allowed to import oil for logistical reasons. But the amounts are massively reduced.
One of the 'miracles' of this debacle is the way Russia's attempt at hydrocarbon blackmail has been rebuffed.
I would just like to note that @Dura_Ace may have some generally... odd... views, but on residual values of vehicles, he is unparalleled.
Back in 2018, I bought a Porsche from a dealer in California. They'd has a buyer pull out, and I negotiated hard, and paid a reasonable amount less than list.
I've just sold it back, to another Porsche dealer, after five years of very enjoyable driving, for almost 90% of what I paid. My per month price has been less than a Toyota Prius.
My wife just peered over my shoulder and asked - very sweetly - if the insurance cost was comparable to a Prius...
I would just like to note that @Dura_Ace may have some generally... odd... views, but on residual values of vehicles, he is unparalleled.
Back in 2018, I bought a Porsche from a dealer in California. They'd has a buyer pull out, and I negotiated hard, and paid a reasonable amount less than list.
I've just sold it back, to another Porsche dealer, after five years of very enjoyable driving, for almost 90% of what I paid. My per month price has been less than a Toyota Prius.
My wife just peered over my shoulder and asked - very sweetly - if the insurance cost was comparable to a Prius...
Tbf it probably is for @Dura_Ace given what insurers know about his driving!
That's a good theory. Except as North Korea shows, it's perfectly possible for a state to descend down to a consistently inward-looking, war-ready, poverty-ridden state for decades. Russia could choose that route, and there is little we could do about it.
Fortunately, plenty of people in Russia *do* care about money.
Is the west still buying Russian hydrocarbons?
Some, yes. But in much reduced, and reducing, quantities. AIUI there are exceptions, even in the EU: e,g, Hungary, Bulgaria, Crotia, are being allowed to import oil for logistical reasons. But the amounts are massively reduced.
One of the 'miracles' of this debacle is the way Russia's attempt at hydrocarbon blackmail has been rebuffed.
That's a good theory. Except as North Korea shows, it's perfectly possible for a state to descend down to a consistently inward-looking, war-ready, poverty-ridden state for decades. Russia could choose that route, and there is little we could do about it.
Fortunately, plenty of people in Russia *do* care about money.
Is the west still buying Russian hydrocarbons?
Some, yes. But in much reduced, and reducing, quantities. AIUI there are exceptions, even in the EU: e,g, Hungary, Bulgaria, Crotia, are being allowed to import oil for logistical reasons. But the amounts are massively reduced.
One of the 'miracles' of this debacle is the way Russia's attempt at hydrocarbon blackmail has been rebuffed.
We’ve got away with it this winter.
Let’s see what next winter brings.
We've been lucky with the weather, yes. (But I'd also add there's been a lot of work done, a lot of it unacknowledged, to get us through winter.)
And whilst I know the theme's become "wait until next winter," I'm unsure what the basis for that is. We (Europe) have nine or ten months to wait for the worst of next winter, and have had more than eighteen months to plan for it. Will the ability to replenish gas stocks during this summer really that limited?
As we've seen with recent UK prime ministers, when replacing a party leader who will also become the sitting prime/first minister it's much more sensible (and democratic) to leave the choice to members of parliament. Either that or simply decouple the prime/first minister job from the party leader job (as in Germany).
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
It may be true, but it might also be essentially redundant. Zelenskyy himself grew up as a Russian speaker, as did many other Ukrainians fighting Russia. It is perfectly possible to hold multiple identities; in the same way I see myself as both English and British. If I wanted, I'd probably add 'barely human' as an identity I hold as well.
Your argument also seems rather fanciful as the appetite to beat the Russians does not seem to be massively weak amongst the Ukrainians. True, we might be getting biased media coverage over here, but the will to fight amongst the Ukrainians seems strong, regardless of their underlying ethnicity, or even religion.
The hilarious thing about this war (and there is precious little to find humorous in this tragedy) is that Russia's invasions in 2014 and 2022 have created a Ukrainian founding legend. Before this, Ukraine in modern times has always been the victim, fought over by those to the west and the east, split, divided and reformed by outside actors. In this war, they're creating a mythos that may well unite these disparate peoples.
Their grandparents may have come from Russia, or Crimea, or Poland, or Romanian; but *they* are Ukrainian.
I think this so. Ethnicity isn't insignificant in national identity, but it isn't the same by a long stretch.
Who would argue that our Prime Minister or Home Secretary are not British, or for that matter Ed Miliband, or The Royal Family?
And just because they speak English as a first language, Irish people are unlikely to support an English invasion to liberate them.
When given a free vote, every oblast voted to be independent Ukraine. There has been some ethnic cleansing since, but this was the starting position.
I would just like to note that @Dura_Ace may have some generally... odd... views, but on residual values of vehicles, he is unparalleled.
Back in 2018, I bought a Porsche from a dealer in California. They'd has a buyer pull out, and I negotiated hard, and paid a reasonable amount less than list.
I've just sold it back, to another Porsche dealer, after five years of very enjoyable driving, for almost 90% of what I paid. My per month price has been less than a Toyota Prius.
My wife just peered over my shoulder and asked - very sweetly - if the insurance cost was comparable to a Prius...
Tbf it probably is for @Dura_Ace given what insurers know about his driving!
That's a good theory. Except as North Korea shows, it's perfectly possible for a state to descend down to a consistently inward-looking, war-ready, poverty-ridden state for decades. Russia could choose that route, and there is little we could do about it.
Fortunately, plenty of people in Russia *do* care about money.
Is the west still buying Russian hydrocarbons?
Some, yes. But in much reduced, and reducing, quantities. AIUI there are exceptions, even in the EU: e,g, Hungary, Bulgaria, Crotia, are being allowed to import oil for logistical reasons. But the amounts are massively reduced.
One of the 'miracles' of this debacle is the way Russia's attempt at hydrocarbon blackmail has been rebuffed.
We’ve got away with it this winter.
Let’s see what next winter brings.
We go into next winter significantly better prepared: the UK has brought Rough back online (albeit not at full capacity), and the Dutch and Germans have also been converting old gas fields for storage.
We're also leaving winter with storage levels well above seasonal norms, so it is almost inevitable that we'll go into next winter with total gas storage 20-30% above the levels in Sept/Oct 2022.
There is more LNG export capacity from the US, and more ships, so there's more non-Russian supply coming.
And - finally - the amount of wind and solar in Europe has increased markedly.
So: could winter 2023 be tough if it's cold and the wind doesn't blow? Yep.
But are we in a much better position than last year? Also yep.
As I say, what we have here is a clash of two religions. One of them is full of sanctimonious, swivel-eyed moral scolds, rooting out heresy and trying to indoctrinate everybody into their fantastic way of thinking. The other is a branch of Calvinism. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?”. Faced with a choice between their representatives on earth, I know which kind I would prefer to see in high office.
As I say, what we have here is a clash of two religions. One of them is full of sanctimonious, swivel-eyed moral scolds, rooting out heresy and trying to indoctrinate everybody into their fantastic way of thinking. The other is a branch of Calvinism. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?”. Faced with a choice between their representatives on earth, I know which kind I would prefer to see in high office.
I would just like to note that @Dura_Ace may have some generally... odd... views, but on residual values of vehicles, he is unparalleled.
Back in 2018, I bought a Porsche from a dealer in California. They'd has a buyer pull out, and I negotiated hard, and paid a reasonable amount less than list.
I've just sold it back, to another Porsche dealer, after five years of very enjoyable driving, for almost 90% of what I paid. My per month price has been less than a Toyota Prius.
My wife just peered over my shoulder and asked - very sweetly - if the insurance cost was comparable to a Prius...
Tbf it probably is for @Dura_Ace given what insurers know about his driving!
Touching naivity that you think him insured...
Well, he spends a lot of time complaining about the cost and restricted choice, so I assume he’s at least asked the question.
Edit - and if of course he’s not insured it would still cost him the same…
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
As I say, what we have here is a clash of two religions. One of them is full of sanctimonious, swivel-eyed moral scolds, rooting out heresy and trying to indoctrinate everybody into their fantastic way of thinking. The other is a branch of Calvinism. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?”. Faced with a choice between their representatives on earth, I know which kind I would prefer to see in high office.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
It may be true, but it might also be essentially redundant. Zelenskyy himself grew up as a Russian speaker, as did many other Ukrainians fighting Russia. It is perfectly possible to hold multiple identities; in the same way I see myself as both English and British. If I wanted, I'd probably add 'barely human' as an identity I hold as well.
Your argument also seems rather fanciful as the appetite to beat the Russians does not seem to be massively weak amongst the Ukrainians. True, we might be getting biased media coverage over here, but the will to fight amongst the Ukrainians seems strong, regardless of their underlying ethnicity, or even religion.
The hilarious thing about this war (and there is precious little to find humorous in this tragedy) is that Russia's invasions in 2014 and 2022 have created a Ukrainian founding legend. Before this, Ukraine in modern times has always been the victim, fought over by those to the west and the east, split, divided and reformed by outside actors. In this war, they're creating a mythos that may well unite these disparate peoples.
Their grandparents may have come from Russia, or Crimea, or Poland, or Romanian; but *they* are Ukrainian.
I think this so. Ethnicity isn't insignificant in national identity, but it isn't the same by a long stretch.
Who would argue that our Prime Minister or Home Secretary are not British, or for that matter Ed Miliband, or The Royal Family?
And just because they speak English as a first language, Irish people are unlikely to support an English invasion to liberate them.
When given a free vote, every oblast voted to be independent Ukraine. There has been some ethnic cleansing since, but this was the starting position.
The argument, which I think is right, also has relevance for the future of the UK.
Just because people identify themselves as "Catholic" in NI does not necessarily mean they want to join the Republic. For some, avoiding the disruption that would ensue or keeping access to British subsidies and the British welfare state is much more important.
So we're stuck with that worthless embarrassment of a province for a while yet, I'm afraid.
This would be consistent with the British Empire response in previous wars - blockade Russia and prevent its hydrocarbon exports to countries like India, Japan, China, etc. I agree that, if we could pull it off without any negative consequences from the countries whose trade with Russia was adversely affected, it would have a damaging effect on Russia's ability to maintain its aggression, but I think the risks of antagonising China and India, in particular, are probably a bit too high.
I would just like to note that @Dura_Ace may have some generally... odd... views, but on residual values of vehicles, he is unparalleled.
Back in 2018, I bought a Porsche from a dealer in California. They'd has a buyer pull out, and I negotiated hard, and paid a reasonable amount less than list.
I've just sold it back, to another Porsche dealer, after five years of very enjoyable driving, for almost 90% of what I paid. My per month price has been less than a Toyota Prius.
My former boss bought a nearly new Ford Ranger out of the Ford dealership in Chesterfield in late 2020, having screwed them down fairly hard on the price (he also traded in against it a fairly tired 5 year old Transit Custom Van that had been to the moon for about twice what it was worth).
He traded the Rangers back in at the same dealership the middle of last year having put 40k more miles on it for £2k more than he originally paid for it! Truly the ways of the used car market are at present weird.
It used to be fairly easy to listen to TMS abroad, with even the BBC advising how to do it sometimes. But now it seems like they've made it much more difficult.
Is TMS or any other BBC outlet commentating on this test? I could find only the text commentary earlier.
TalkSport bought the rights for this series. They've tended to outbid the BBC for the rights to England's overseas tours of the smaller Test nations. I'd expect the BBC to make more of an effort to secure the rights for the tour of India.
As a thought experiment, because for some reason lots of people lose the ability to think rationally when the words 'same-sex marriage' appear, what about this:
Imagine Liz Truss had never renounced her youthful republicanism, and when she launched her leadership campaign was asked about her views on the monarchy. And she said she would vote to abolish the monarchy. If lots of conservatives said that was a red line and were withdrawing their support, would we get a load of shit about how she was being 'crucified' just for being refreshingly honest about her beliefs?
I would just like to note that @Dura_Ace may have some generally... odd... views, but on residual values of vehicles, he is unparalleled.
Back in 2018, I bought a Porsche from a dealer in California. They'd has a buyer pull out, and I negotiated hard, and paid a reasonable amount less than list.
I've just sold it back, to another Porsche dealer, after five years of very enjoyable driving, for almost 90% of what I paid. My per month price has been less than a Toyota Prius.
My wife just peered over my shoulder and asked - very sweetly - if the insurance cost was comparable to a Prius...
You own your own insurance company FFS. If you can't give yourself mate's rates on the Porsche, what's the point?
As I say, what we have here is a clash of two religions. One of them is full of sanctimonious, swivel-eyed moral scolds, rooting out heresy and trying to indoctrinate everybody into their fantastic way of thinking. The other is a branch of Calvinism. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?”. Faced with a choice between their representatives on earth, I know which kind I would prefer to see in high office.
Typical hyperbolic bullshit. Some people have said they won't support Forbes's bid to be leader of the SNP, and this is called 'crucifixion'.
I know who I would describe as 'swivel-eyed'.
Did you bother to read the article or did the opening humour derail you straight into splenetic rage? The more pertinent question, though, is whether the religious or philosophical beliefs of a politician are relevant to their suitability for office, and especially when the office in question is leader.
Generally speaking, I don’t see why they aren’t — quite the contrary. The farming industry might reasonably be concerned if a vegan became Secretary of State at Defra. The Equality Act protects the philosophical beliefs of spiritualist psychics, but if a would-be prime minister claimed he could see into the future, voters might worry. And in both cases, the assurance that the beliefs in question were “personal” wouldn’t be much consolation — after all, they are still beliefs, involving a distinctive way of looking at the world that by definition can’t be switched off at will. Where a person appears to be able to leave his personal beliefs at home — as Forbes’ rival Humza Yousaf implies he can with Islam — then arguably, he doesn’t have very strong beliefs in the first place.
Good thread header but if anything it slightly understates the damage done to Russia and their military. Even with substantial energy exports to fund them, it would take decades for Russia to replace all the military kit they have lost in the last year. At the moment they are struggling to build any new tanks etc because of sanctions and the lack of a domestic chip industry. They are going to be left with an army that will struggle to contain separation movements in parts of Russia, let alone be a threat to neighbours.
The bigger risk from the rest of the world point of view is that Russia collapses into civil wars and break away republics with large numbers of nuclear weapons at large. After Ukraine no one will ever give up their nuclear weapons again.
Kate Forbes is the most popular candidate to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister despite the row over her religious beliefs, a poll of SNP supporters has found.
Scots who voted for the Nationalists at the 2021 Holyrood election were questioned on who they think should replace her as party leader - with almost a third (31 per cent) of those questioned said they do not yet know who to back.
But 28 per cent said they support Forbes - putting her ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan, who polled 20 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
’Prince Andrew Threatening To Write Bombshell Tell-All About King Charles Unless His Royal Paychecks Are Reinstated’
“People thought Prince Harry’s memoir was bad. But what Andrew can reveal about certain members of his family would blow the lid off!” spilled an insider.
Sources said vengeful Andrew may even address long-standing rumors about the kings’ flings with other men — more than six years after Charles, 74, was spotted puckering up with a much younger guy!
“He could uncover details about this father Prince Philip’s ties to Hitler’s Nazi regime, and he wouldn’t be unwilling to spill the darkest secrets held by his own mother, Queen Elizabeth!”
Kate Forbes is the most popular candidate to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister despite the row over her religious beliefs, a poll of SNP supporters has found.
Scots who voted for the Nationalists at the 2021 Holyrood election were questioned on who they think should replace her as party leader - with almost a third (31 per cent) of those questioned said they do not yet know who to back.
But 28 per cent said they support Forbes - putting her ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan, who polled 20 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
For Labour read SNP, for Jezbollah read Kate Forbes. Are the members going to impose Forbes over the wishes of the MSPs who largely don't want her?
That would be fun!
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader and a faction join with Labour and the Greens to vote Anas Sarwar in as FM, I do hope that two eventualities have been foreseen and planned for:
1) Actual rioting in Scotland; 2) The acute international shortages of popcorn.
Good thread header but if anything it slightly understates the damage done to Russia and their military. Even with substantial energy exports to fund them, it would take decades for Russia to replace all the military kit they have lost in the last year. At the moment they are struggling to build any new tanks etc because of sanctions and the lack of a domestic chip industry. They are going to be left with an army that will struggle to contain separation movements in parts of Russia, let alone be a threat to neighbours.
The bigger risk from the rest of the world point of view is that Russia collapses into civil wars and break away republics with large numbers of nuclear weapons at large. After Ukraine no one will ever give up their nuclear weapons again.
That is indeed a risk. But there are issues (the same ones that were the reasons that Ukraine gave up their nukes). Firstly, nukes are rally, really expensive to maintain in working order in the medium and long term. Just the security around them is expensive. Secondly, nukes are pointless without a delivery mechanism. Landlocked stans will not have a coastline to operate (expensive) ballistic missile submarines from, so they are left with ICBMs and plane deliveries. Ballistic missiles with any significant range are again expensive to develop and maintain, and are also detectable. Planes have a problem with range, and are much more easily intercepted.
Keeping a handful of nukes around, just to say you have them, might be better than keeping hundreds with expensive delivery mechanisms.
And you can guarantee the west will pay lots of money for these states to rid themselves of their nukes - or most of them.
IMV the bigger risk is nukes getting 'sold' or 'lost' to terrorist groups or rogue states. But I fear Russia might be in the mood to provide Iran with nukes in exchange for more help. Oh, how far Russia has fallen...
Kate Forbes is the most popular candidate to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister despite the row over her religious beliefs, a poll of SNP supporters has found.
Scots who voted for the Nationalists at the 2021 Holyrood election were questioned on who they think should replace her as party leader - with almost a third (31 per cent) of those questioned said they do not yet know who to back.
But 28 per cent said they support Forbes - putting her ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan, who polled 20 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
Kate Forbes is the most popular candidate to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister despite the row over her religious beliefs, a poll of SNP supporters has found.
Scots who voted for the Nationalists at the 2021 Holyrood election were questioned on who they think should replace her as party leader - with almost a third (31 per cent) of those questioned said they do not yet know who to back.
But 28 per cent said they support Forbes - putting her ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan, who polled 20 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
For Labour read SNP, for Jezbollah read Kate Forbes. Are the members going to impose Forbes over the wishes of the MSPs who largely don't want her?
That would be fun!
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader and a faction join with Labour and the Greens to vote Anas Sarwar in as FM, I do hope that two eventualities have been foreseen and planned for:
1) Actual rioting in Scotland; 2) The acute international shortages of popcorn.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
Ooops, my bad. Chernivtsi is actually 75% Ukrainian, 20% Romanian, 4% Russian.
I think Sunil just learned Dura Ace! Truly an historic moment.
The idea that Ukraine is some kind of Yugoslavia in the making is quite eccentric.
As far as Dura Ace goes his position is the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
You take that too far, and before long you'll be inviting Liberal Democrats into your home, and that never ends well.
Don't judge until you've walked a mile in their sandals.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
Ooops, my bad. Chernivtsi is actually 75% Ukrainian, 20% Romanian, 4% Russian.
I think Sunil just learned Dura Ace! Truly an historic moment.
The idea that Ukraine is some kind of Yugoslavia in the making is quite eccentric.
As far as Dura Ace goes his position is the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
You take that too far, and before long you'll be inviting Liberal Democrats into your home, and that never ends well.
Don't judge until you've walked a mile in their sandals.
’Prince Andrew Threatening To Write Bombshell Tell-All About King Charles Unless His Royal Paychecks Are Reinstated’
“People thought Prince Harry’s memoir was bad. But what Andrew can reveal about certain members of his family would blow the lid off!” spilled an insider.
Sources said vengeful Andrew may even address long-standing rumors about the kings’ flings with other men — more than six years after Charles, 74, was spotted puckering up with a much younger guy!
“He could uncover details about this father Prince Philip’s ties to Hitler’s Nazi regime, and he wouldn’t be unwilling to spill the darkest secrets held by his own mother, Queen Elizabeth!”
I'd not heard of Radar Online, but going to their front page shows that it is surely a robust and clinical supplier of information. Who can deny a media organisation that brings us stories such as:
"Reba McEntire's Beauty Bill Exposed: Country Queen, 67, Spends $100k Per Year To Look Red Carpet Ready — Sources"
"Adele's Friends Fear Fun-Loving Singer Is Partying 'Too Much' As She Hopes To Expand Her Family With Sports Agent BF Rich Paul"
or
"Safety Fears: Three Perverts Claiming To Be Friends of Madeleine McCann's Parents Attempt To Lure Julia Wendell To Hotel, Medium Claims"
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
Our favourite cheddar is Black bomber from Snowdonia. It is the highest selling cheese in our local cheese shop. Welsh cheesemaking is pretty strong already.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian. Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east: Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
Ooops, my bad. Chernivtsi is actually 75% Ukrainian, 20% Romanian, 4% Russian.
I think Sunil just learned Dura Ace! Truly an historic moment.
The idea that Ukraine is some kind of Yugoslavia in the making is quite eccentric.
As far as Dura Ace goes his position is the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
You take that too far, and before long you'll be inviting Liberal Democrats into your home, and that never ends well.
Don't judge until you've walked a mile in their sandals.
Are socks compulsory?
Yes, in order to carry out the inevitable requests to put a sock in it.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
Comments
If you want to slander me, be my guest.
As for not knowing your views, I think everybody knows your views. Your views are that "both sides" need to make concessions. Unless, my reading your post has led me to be mistaken about your views.
Your delusion, and it is a delusion, is to continually mistake "Russian speaking" with Russian.
Lenin added the eastern Russian provinces in the 1920s after the civil war.
Stalin put the previously Polish western provinces (Lviv, etc.) into Ukraine after WW2.
To shut Krushchev up Stalin added Chernivitsi which was previously Romanian.
Krushchev still wouldn't shut the fuck up so Stalin added the Odessa oblast to Ukraine.
Stalin took Transcarpathia from Hungary and lego'ed that on to Ukraine after WW2 but that appears to be his own idea.
When Krushchev took over he transferred Crimea to Ukraine.
So you've got millions of people who identified as Russian, Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian being forcibly added to Ukraine without consultation or consent. This all held together when they were part of the Soviet Union but without that central dominance it was inevitably going to fall apart in bloody and spectacular fashion.
Yes there was clearly some major issues arising even without that invasion in 2014 hence why there was support in areas like Crimea in particular, but your post seems to presume it would be just as bad even without it and I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.
There are surely degrees of internal tensions, all countries are artificial when you get right down to it and rarely have 100% support for their existence, and even in places with significant tensions or artificiality do not 'inevitably' fall apart in so bloody a way. Without outside help.
Chernivtsi, and Izmail down in the south, were indeed Romanian 1918-1940 but were actually majority Ukrainian.
You're welcome.
"How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.
“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
source: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/08/06/bankrupt/
According to the 2001 Census, the most recent figures I found:
Transcarpathia (Czech 1918-1939, Hungarian 1939-45) = 81% Ukrainian, only 12% Hungarian, 3% Romanian, 3% Russian
Chernivtsi oblast (Romanian 1918-1940) = 79% Ukrainian, 15% Russian, only 3% Romanian.
Odessa oblast (inc. the Izmail and Belgorod raions among others which were Romanian 1918-1940) = 63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian, Bulgarian 6%, Romanian 5%
And in the east:
Donetsk oblast only 39% Russian
Luhansk oblast only 38% Russian
Leaving only Crimea (inc. Sevastopol) as Russian majority (58% for the whole peninsula, increasing to 72% in Sevastopol).
I appreciate he has to write nonsense like this to sell copy and afford a summer holiday, but there has to be limits to making yourself look completely stupid.
Those Christians who agree with Kates views are speaking up on her behalf, those Christians who disagree with her speaking up explaining why, shows us Christian Church always always been about politics, and protest, rethinking things through and struggle for reform. Christianity is about love and more love and doing love better. I don’t want to lift it from W1A, but Christianity has always been about doing the same thing better.
This is why I used the Thomas More example in reply to Algykirk as the smoking gun he said didn’t exist on same sex marriage argument - at his trial Thomas More accused them as going against a tried and tested religion that had stood for a thousand years. History. Tradition. Strong and Stable. Even today some people still think about Christianity in same rubbish way Thomas More saw it. Strong and Stable though he needed a torture chamber in his house.
This is, if Kate or her critics was now in past history of UK or even other parts of the world today, they would be assassinated now. Being Christian is not about signing up to Jam and Jerusalem, it’s about signing up to discussion and thought, protest and argument. Based on this view, I always add lots of key questions to ask in my Sunday School lessons. For example the difference between Monergism and Synergism: do you think regeneration of people is work of God through Holy Spirit alone, or do we have to cooperate with God's grace in order to be born again as new. Very key thinking between much protest and split in Christianity.
Truly an historic moment.
That already appears to have happened in Ukraine. In 1939 the population of Lyiv was 50% Polish and used cover of the war to beat up the Ukrainians and vice versa 🙁
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawłokoma_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
"Because of the lack of consensus on how to define Cossacks, accurate numbers are not available. According to the Russian Census of 2010, 67,573 people identify as ethnic Cossack in Russia.[139]"
And then it goes:
"Between 3.5 and 5 million people associate themselves with the Cossack identity in Europe and across the world.[5][6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks
If you think that opinion is patronising, then think of the children Kate Forbes is having, What would it be like for a gay person to grow up with parents with views like that? Happy? Unhappy? the important thing to remember is Kate and all her supporters are all completely wrong becuase gay isn’t a cultural thing you get into at university, like board gaming, Maoism or Jack Kerouac.
I’m living in the positive side to all this arguing, either defending or protesting against Kate’s views on sex, marriage and sexual identity, its so brilliant for our politics and Christianity really - this the energy and stage needed to tackle head on the prejudicial feelings people feel individually or part of a culture, and making those horrid prejudicial things go away for good. Look how Paul moved on way to Damascus. Christianity has always been about how to move closer to a world of love, and fact that all people who still think like Kate Forbes and Thomas More are losing this, them and their prejudicial feelings getting exorcised like bad sprits, means this is more a world of love now, than ever ever before 🥰
Also, to quibble, it's not true that all of Ukraine's different ethnic populations were added either by the Soviet empire, or in some cases without their consent.
The history of the region that's now Ukraine is a great deal older than the failed communist experiment - and for that matter, extends beyond it.
And as a matter of fact, the efforts of Russia to subvert independent Ukraine, and the subsequent invasion, have forged a much stronger modern national identity.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/23/volodymyr-zelenskyy-ukraine-leadership-comedy-00083489
Its author seems rather more qualified to write in the topic than the average US journalist.
https://jessicapisano.net/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/23/dozens-tory-mps-could-ousted-membership-reckoning-boris-johnson/ (£££)
But no one has any idea what that is; could be anything from fairly benign to terminal.
It's just that I think he's wrong in the conclusions he draws.
The fact that it's been a plaything of the Russian empire is probably more a force for unification against such a repeated fate than any ethnic divisions (which I think he exaggerates) are a force for disintegration.
Time to go back to sleep.
For Russia, this is a fight for survival
What absolute absurd, and ridiculous bunkum.
If Russia pulls out of Ukraine then, for the average Russian, nothing changes. Except, perhaps, they don't mourn the death of friends and family, and goods are more available in stores. But nothing bad, fundamentally, happens except perhaps that Russia's standing falls in the world. (Something pretty fucking low on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.)
If the Ukrainians give in, by contrast, total fucking shit happens. We've already seen what's happened in the East (although @YBarddCwsc would like to pretend that "both sides" are somehow to blame), with rapes, extrajudicial murders and the abduction and forced resettlement in Russia of children.
Russia's existence is not threatened. Ukraine will not be marching on Moscow. Fuck, before Russia invaded there wasn't a chance in hell that Ukraine would even have been marching into the Crimea or the Donbas.
This is not a war of survival for Russia, it is a war of conquest. Those who seek to defend or excuse it should be ashamed of themselves.
ETA the SMO might also now be a war of survival for the current Russian government. L'etat, c'est Putin.
Hello World! 🌎 At Clone, we are making synthetic humans, starting with a 1:1 copy of the human hand. Here’s the Clone Hand’s first manipulation demonstration, manually preprogrammed in a few hours!
https://twitter.com/dhanushisrad/status/1628497852124258305
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1628899992617332738
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23342512.snp-leadership-race-kate-forbes-takes-early-lead-voter-poll/
SNP MSPs are planning to scupper Kate Forbes’ bid to lead the country by refusing to vote for her as First Minister.
Her opposition to same sex marriage could pave the way for Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar to succeed Nicola Sturgeon.
It comes as a new poll found the finance secretary to be the most popular of the contenders to take over.
But an SNP insider said: "Some MSPs will not vote for Kate.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-msps-vote-against-kate-29296454
Scots who voted for the Nationalists at the 2021 Holyrood election were questioned on who they think should replace her as party leader - with almost a third (31 per cent) of those questioned said they do not yet know who to back.
But 28 per cent said they support Forbes - putting her ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan, who polled 20 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kate-forbes-most-popular-candidate-29296053
https://twitter.com/kmckenna63/status/1628313772514222081
So it looks like it breaks down to:
SNP voters - Forbes
SNP Establishment - Yousuf
“One more heave” Nationalists - Regan
Your argument also seems rather fanciful as the appetite to beat the Russians does not seem to be massively weak amongst the Ukrainians. True, we might be getting biased media coverage over here, but the will to fight amongst the Ukrainians seems strong, regardless of their underlying ethnicity, or even religion.
The hilarious thing about this war (and there is precious little to find humorous in this tragedy) is that Russia's invasions in 2014 and 2022 have created a Ukrainian founding legend. Before this, Ukraine in modern times has always been the victim, fought over by those to the west and the east, split, divided and reformed by outside actors. In this war, they're creating a mythos that may well unite these disparate peoples.
Their grandparents may have come from Russia, or Crimea, or Poland, or Romanian; but *they* are Ukrainian.
Oral history: Leaders recall dismay, fury on first day of war in Ukraine
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/oral-history-russia-ukraine-war/
" Johnson was awakened by a call from one of his advisers. The British prime minister responded with an obscenity directed at Putin: “That f---ing c---.”
"I was disgusted by Putin. I was disgusted by what he was doing. I was nauseated by his language, by his lies, by his aggression, by his condescension toward Ukraine. I thought the whole thing was repellent, arrogant, chauvinistic, wrong."
Zelensky is a native Russian speaker and affects a very cultured accent in which terminal vowel sounds are rounded from /ɒ/ to /ɑ/ deliberately to sound like a Muscovite. I have never heard him not do this.
When he speaks Ukrainian it's with a very weird staccato accent that avoids palatisation and uses many obscure words and recently invented neologisms. The overall impression is the same as Jacob Rees-Mogg doing a press conference in a Geordie accent. Why aye, my good chap.
He uses "official" Ukrainian which is the language as it is spoken in the Cherkasy oblast and is basically Malorussian with some Polish loan words. The West-Ukranian dialog is more widespread and is a peasant's tongue mainly used for haggling over stolen tractor parts. It is, in some sense, a synthetic language invented by Ukrainian nationalists in the late 19th C. with extensive Polonisation. Finally, there is a Carpathian dialect with elements from the languages of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
In almost all of the videos of AFU forces at the front they are speaking Surzhyk which is a sociolectic combination of Russian and West Ukranian much favoured by the lower socioeconomic and criminal classes of Donbas and Ukraine.
At some point that first day, the president gathered us all together. There were a lot of us in that bunker — maybe 120 people including the security guards. He said, ‘Look, we’re staying. From tomorrow, it may be that we don’t have a chance to leave. Everyone has their own life and needs to make a decision for themselves. Choose to either stay or go somewhere safer.’ … The whole situation felt like a dream, so I went to another room and called my wife. I said that we can make a choice right now. … She answered me very clearly — maybe with some humor — that she’d rather tell our kids that I was a hero once than a deserter many times.….
Those first hours, we asked what information to give people and [Lt. Gen. Yevhen] Moisiuk told me to tell everyone, ‘Kill the occupiers!’ And that was it.
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1629007777787006976?s=20
Fortunately, plenty of people in Russia *do* care about money.
(And I like your addition of 'criminal classes' at the end. I hope you'd refer to a Muscovite accent as being 'mass-murdering scumbags' as well, just for balance.)
Back in 2018, I bought a Porsche from a dealer in California. They'd has a buyer pull out, and I negotiated hard, and paid a reasonable amount less than list.
I've just sold it back, to another Porsche dealer, after five years of very enjoyable driving, for almost 90% of what I paid. My per month price has been less than a Toyota Prius.
One of the 'miracles' of this debacle is the way Russia's attempt at hydrocarbon blackmail has been rebuffed.
Let’s see what next winter brings.
And whilst I know the theme's become "wait until next winter," I'm unsure what the basis for that is. We (Europe) have nine or ten months to wait for the worst of next winter, and have had more than eighteen months to plan for it. Will the ability to replenish gas stocks during this summer really that limited?
Who would argue that our Prime Minister or Home Secretary are not British, or for that matter Ed Miliband, or The Royal Family?
And just because they speak English as a first language, Irish people are unlikely to support an English invasion to liberate them.
When given a free vote, every oblast voted to be independent Ukraine. There has been some ethnic cleansing since, but this was the starting position.
We're also leaving winter with storage levels well above seasonal norms, so it is almost inevitable that we'll go into next winter with total gas storage 20-30% above the levels in Sept/Oct 2022.
There is more LNG export capacity from the US, and more ships, so there's more non-Russian supply coming.
And - finally - the amount of wind and solar in Europe has increased markedly.
So: could winter 2023 be tough if it's cold and the wind doesn't blow? Yep.
But are we in a much better position than last year? Also yep.
https://unherd.com/2023/02/the-crucifixion-of-kate-forbes/
Edit - and if of course he’s not insured it would still cost him the same…
Caerphilly cheese production returns to hometown
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64747898
That would be good if it could be managed.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1629019097177489408?s=20
I know who I would describe as 'swivel-eyed'.
Just because people identify themselves as "Catholic" in NI does not necessarily mean they want to join the Republic. For some, avoiding the disruption that would ensue or keeping access to British subsidies and the British welfare state is much more important.
So we're stuck with that worthless embarrassment of a province for a while yet, I'm afraid.
He traded the Rangers back in at the same dealership the middle of last year having put 40k more miles on it for £2k more than he originally paid for it! Truly the ways of the used car market are at present weird.
Imagine Liz Truss had never renounced her youthful republicanism, and when she launched her leadership campaign was asked about her views on the monarchy. And she said she would vote to abolish the monarchy. If lots of conservatives said that was a red line and were withdrawing their support, would we get a load of shit about how she was being 'crucified' just for being refreshingly honest about her beliefs?
The more pertinent question, though, is whether the religious or philosophical beliefs of a politician are relevant to their suitability for office, and especially when the office in question is leader.
Generally speaking, I don’t see why they aren’t — quite the contrary. The farming industry might reasonably be concerned if a vegan became Secretary of State at Defra. The Equality Act protects the philosophical beliefs of spiritualist psychics, but if a would-be prime minister claimed he could see into the future, voters might worry. And in both cases, the assurance that the beliefs in question were “personal” wouldn’t be much consolation — after all, they are still beliefs, involving a distinctive way of looking at the world that by definition can’t be switched off at will. Where a person appears to be able to leave his personal beliefs at home — as Forbes’ rival Humza Yousaf implies he can with Islam — then arguably, he doesn’t have very strong beliefs in the first place.
The bigger risk from the rest of the world point of view is that Russia collapses into civil wars and break away republics with large numbers of nuclear weapons at large. After Ukraine no one will ever give up their nuclear weapons again.
That would be fun!
“People thought Prince Harry’s memoir was bad. But what Andrew can reveal about certain members of his family would blow the lid off!” spilled an insider.
Sources said vengeful Andrew may even address long-standing rumors about the kings’ flings with other men — more than six years after Charles, 74, was spotted puckering up with a much younger guy!
“He could uncover details about this father Prince Philip’s ties to Hitler’s Nazi regime, and he wouldn’t be unwilling to spill the darkest secrets held by his own mother, Queen Elizabeth!”
https://radaronline.com/p/prince-andrew-threatening-write-tell-all-king-charles-royal-paychecks-epstein/
1) Actual rioting in Scotland;
2) The acute international shortages of popcorn.
Keeping a handful of nukes around, just to say you have them, might be better than keeping hundreds with expensive delivery mechanisms.
And you can guarantee the west will pay lots of money for these states to rid themselves of their nukes - or most of them.
IMV the bigger risk is nukes getting 'sold' or 'lost' to terrorist groups or rogue states. But I fear Russia might be in the mood to provide Iran with nukes in exchange for more help. Oh, how far Russia has fallen...
https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/police-scotland-chief-constable-ian-livingstone-to-retire-from-role-this-summer-4038278
"Reba McEntire's Beauty Bill Exposed: Country Queen, 67, Spends $100k Per Year To Look Red Carpet Ready — Sources"
"Adele's Friends Fear Fun-Loving Singer Is Partying 'Too Much' As She Hopes To Expand Her Family With Sports Agent BF Rich Paul"
or
"Safety Fears: Three Perverts Claiming To Be Friends of Madeleine McCann's Parents Attempt To Lure Julia Wendell To Hotel, Medium Claims"
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/24/russia-ukraine-war-oral-history-00083757