On the face of it, I would go for Ashten. She seems moderate and centre-left, and while I take @Theuniondivvie 's point about her private schooling her children, I am happy to vote for the many Labour MPs who do likewise. So not a dealbreaker for me.
Regan presents well and her background in marketing could help her make the case for independence.
That all said, she is something of a (flame-haired) dark horse, so like many other PBers I don't know a great deal about her.
Popped in quickly. Just learnt that there will be members' hustings, but all members only. AIUI this is separate from the broadcasters' ones (if any).
Televised ?
Members only, I did say: but, since you ask, and since the point is worth clarifying, even the online one is members' only. Ms Regan has agreed to a proposed broadcast hustings but I'm not sure what the state of play of the other two is.
Thanks but surely it is inconceivable that hustings will not be televised
This *is* a membership election, not an election for FM or a national one ór a Westminster election. The election for FM will be televised like any vote in the Holyrood Parliament.
Much like the recent Tory leadership election then? It was not guaranteed the new Tory leader would be PM, just extremely likely.
Not true. A vote for [edit, sorry] FM is *obligatory*. And have a look at the numbers.
But the candidate that wins the membership vote is going to be the candidate for FM, who will then go on to win that vote.
And if it is Forbes who wins the SNP membership vote she will likely end up FM of Scotland without most MSPs supporting her. Exactly the same problem Truss had when Tory members but not most MPs elected her UK PM
Yes, Forbes is permanently crippled, politically
She would be a hugely divisive figure, if she becomes FM
Yousaf is an inept buffoon
Ash Regan seems both VALUE and sensible, if you’re a punter or a Nit
This contest looks, based on my limited understanding, to be highly divisive full stop. You have three candidates trying to emerge from the shadow of a titan, all of whom have one or more things wrong with them that stand to alienate them from sections of their own party.
Yousaf is continuity Sturgeon minus the talent and charisma, and the Sturgeon era itself stands for nearly a decade in which progress towards the all-consuming, desperately wanted goal of independence has been essentially nil.
Forbes appears to be regarded as administratively competent but is hamstrung by her religious conservative beliefs, the arguments over which won't simply go away if she wins.
Regan is a junior and obscure figure who resigned to oppose the bulk of her colleagues (and side with the hated Tories) on gender self-ID.
It all has the potential to create a tremendous mess, particularly if the eventual winner with the party membership repeats Corbyn's position of being lauded by the grassroots but resented by the bulk of the parliamentary party.
On the face of it, I would go for Ashten. She seems moderate and centre-left, and while I take @Theuniondivvie 's point about her private schooling her children, I am happy to vote for the many Labour MPs who do likewise. So not a dealbreaker for me.
Regan presents well and her background in marketing could help her make the case for independence.
That all said, she is something of a (flame-haired) dark horse, so like many other PBers I don't know a great deal about her.
Popped in quickly. Just learnt that there will be members' hustings, but all members only. AIUI this is separate from the broadcasters' ones (if any).
Televised ?
Members only, I did say: but, since you ask, and since the point is worth clarifying, even the online one is members' only. Ms Regan has agreed to a proposed broadcast hustings but I'm not sure what the state of play of the other two is.
Thanks but surely it is inconceivable that hustings will not be televised
This *is* a membership election, not an election for FM or a national one ór a Westminster election. The election for FM will be televised like any vote in the Holyrood Parliament.
Technically it isn't the election of the next First Minister; in practice, of course, it is. The Greens will doubtless be mightily pissed off when the Scottish Government sullenly admits defeat over gender recognition rather than attempting UDI, but fundamentally they're still sock puppets and aren't going to switch sides and put Labour into bat in the trial of a thousand years.
If there's no TV debate (as there was with the Truss-Sunak contest) then it will simply lead to questions as to why the candidates are frit.
There would have to be a coalition of every non-SNP MSP, right? And Labour aren't even the biggest opposition party. Given the way the last election was conducted, I can't see any way anything happens except the new SNP leader being the new FM.
On the face of it, I would go for Ashten. She seems moderate and centre-left, and while I take @Theuniondivvie 's point about her private schooling her children, I am happy to vote for the many Labour MPs who do likewise. So not a dealbreaker for me.
Regan presents well and her background in marketing could help her make the case for independence.
That all said, she is something of a (flame-haired) dark horse, so like many other PBers I don't know a great deal about her.
Popped in quickly. Just learnt that there will be members' hustings, but all members only. AIUI this is separate from the broadcasters' ones (if any).
Also remember (a) Joanna Cherry is reported to have opened her leadership campaign launch event; and (b) see this
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
On the face of it, I would go for Ashten. She seems moderate and centre-left, and while I take @Theuniondivvie 's point about her private schooling her children, I am happy to vote for the many Labour MPs who do likewise. So not a dealbreaker for me.
Regan presents well and her background in marketing could help her make the case for independence.
That all said, she is something of a (flame-haired) dark horse, so like many other PBers I don't know a great deal about her.
Popped in quickly. Just learnt that there will be members' hustings, but all members only. AIUI this is separate from the broadcasters' ones (if any).
Televised ?
Members only, I did say: but, since you ask, and since the point is worth clarifying, even the online one is members' only. Ms Regan has agreed to a proposed broadcast hustings but I'm not sure what the state of play of the other two is.
Thanks but surely it is inconceivable that hustings will not be televised
This *is* a membership election, not an election for FM or a national one ór a Westminster election. The election for FM will be televised like any vote in the Holyrood Parliament.
Much like the recent Tory leadership election then? It was not guaranteed the new Tory leader would be PM, just extremely likely.
Not true. A vote for [edit, sorry] FM is *obligatory*. And have a look at the numbers.
But the candidate that wins the membership vote is going to be the candidate for FM, who will then go on to win that vote.
And if it is Forbes who wins the SNP membership vote she will likely end up FM of Scotland without most MSPs supporting her. Exactly the same problem Truss had when Tory members but not most MPs elected her UK PM
Yes, Forbes is permanently crippled, politically
She would be a hugely divisive figure, if she becomes FM
Yousaf is an inept buffoon
Ash Regan seems both VALUE and sensible, if you’re a punter or a Nit
This contest looks, based on my limited understanding, to be highly divisive full stop. You have three candidates trying to emerge from the shadow of a titan, all of whom have one or more things wrong with them that stand to alienate them from sections of their own party.
Yousaf is continuity Sturgeon minus the talent and charisma, and the Sturgeon era itself stands for nearly a decade in which progress towards the all-consuming, desperately wanted goal of independence has been essentially nil.
Forbes appears to be regarded as administratively competent but is hamstrung by her religious conservative beliefs, the arguments over which won't simply go away if she wins.
Regan is a junior and obscure figure who resigned to oppose the bulk of her colleagues (and side with the hated Tories) on gender self-ID.
It all has the potential to create a tremendous mess, particularly if the eventual winner with the party membership repeats Corbyn's position of being lauded by the grassroots but resented by the bulk of the parliamentary party.
Yes, very arguable
I still think (with my also limited understanding) that Regan seems the least-worst
Why the F did Roberston not stand? How bad are the hidden scandals? He’s capable and experienced. He’d be strolling home
LDs target 'Surrey shufflers', young families who have moved out of London to settle in the most wealthy of the Home counties in an effort to unseat top Tories like Hunt and Gove at the next election
But I just went line-by-line through the DeSantis education bill. And you guys, it’s *bananas*. A road map for wrecking one of our great state systems of higher education.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
On the face of it, I would go for Ashten. She seems moderate and centre-left, and while I take @Theuniondivvie 's point about her private schooling her children, I am happy to vote for the many Labour MPs who do likewise. So not a dealbreaker for me.
Regan presents well and her background in marketing could help her make the case for independence.
That all said, she is something of a (flame-haired) dark horse, so like many other PBers I don't know a great deal about her.
Popped in quickly. Just learnt that there will be members' hustings, but all members only. AIUI this is separate from the broadcasters' ones (if any).
Televised ?
Members only, I did say: but, since you ask, and since the point is worth clarifying, even the online one is members' only. Ms Regan has agreed to a proposed broadcast hustings but I'm not sure what the state of play of the other two is.
Thanks but surely it is inconceivable that hustings will not be televised
This *is* a membership election, not an election for FM or a national one ór a Westminster election. The election for FM will be televised like any vote in the Holyrood Parliament.
Much like the recent Tory leadership election then? It was not guaranteed the new Tory leader would be PM, just extremely likely.
Not true. A vote for [edit, sorry] FM is *obligatory*. And have a look at the numbers.
But the candidate that wins the membership vote is going to be the candidate for FM, who will then go on to win that vote.
And if it is Forbes who wins the SNP membership vote she will likely end up FM of Scotland without most MSPs supporting her. Exactly the same problem Truss had when Tory members but not most MPs elected her UK PM
How can she end up as FM without the support of most MSPs?
She cannot
She can, unless the Scottish Greens and Scottish Conservatives and LDs vote for Sarwar instead of her.
SNP MSPs will vote for her reluctantly but she will be in permanent probation as Truss was with Tory MPs
Mhairi Black MP🏳️🌈 @MhairiBlack If your faith says you cannot drink alcohol, then don’t. If your religion says you cannot enter same sex marriage, then don’t. If your religion does not allow for abortion, then do not have one.
If your faith says don't commit murder...
Black is basically saying, these things are off-limits for politicians to vote on.
On the face of it, I would go for Ashten. She seems moderate and centre-left, and while I take @Theuniondivvie 's point about her private schooling her children, I am happy to vote for the many Labour MPs who do likewise. So not a dealbreaker for me.
Regan presents well and her background in marketing could help her make the case for independence.
That all said, she is something of a (flame-haired) dark horse, so like many other PBers I don't know a great deal about her.
Popped in quickly. Just learnt that there will be members' hustings, but all members only. AIUI this is separate from the broadcasters' ones (if any).
Televised ?
Members only, I did say: but, since you ask, and since the point is worth clarifying, even the online one is members' only. Ms Regan has agreed to a proposed broadcast hustings but I'm not sure what the state of play of the other two is.
Thanks but surely it is inconceivable that hustings will not be televised
This *is* a membership election, not an election for FM or a national one ór a Westminster election. The election for FM will be televised like any vote in the Holyrood Parliament.
Much like the recent Tory leadership election then? It was not guaranteed the new Tory leader would be PM, just extremely likely.
Not true. A vote for [edit, sorry] FM is *obligatory*. And have a look at the numbers.
But the candidate that wins the membership vote is going to be the candidate for FM, who will then go on to win that vote.
And if it is Forbes who wins the SNP membership vote she will likely end up FM of Scotland without most MSPs supporting her. Exactly the same problem Truss had when Tory members but not most MPs elected her UK PM
Yes, Forbes is permanently crippled, politically
She would be a hugely divisive figure, if she becomes FM
Yousaf is an inept buffoon
Ash Regan seems both VALUE and sensible, if you’re a punter or a Nit
Agreed. I wonder if this will be a genuine "best campaign wins" horse race? The starting prices are mighty close...
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
I'm wondering whether this is becoming a Forbes vs Regan battle.
Yousaf as the SNP establishment candidate and supporter of GRR is going to backfire bigly.
Which I dare say will suit Ash.
She is more muscular on indy than Forbes, and well to the left of her. You'd think she'd be favourite in an all-female head-to-head?
Dunno. I think you need some insight into SNP membership to get a betting steer on this. The only judgement I've made is that Yousaf at strong odds-on looked way too short to me.
Mhairi Black MP🏳️🌈 @MhairiBlack If your faith says you cannot drink alcohol, then don’t. If your religion says you cannot enter same sex marriage, then don’t. If your religion does not allow for abortion, then do not have one.
If your faith says don't commit murder...
Black is basically saying, these things are off-limits for politicians to vote on.
But Ms Black is not a candidate, at leastd for the leadership.
I note Disney and Puffin seem to have come to similar conclusions for old content that contravenes the woke laws.
What do you mean? Not seen anything about Puffin.
Unless they've changed recently, Disney's solution is quite smart. They have on Disney+ the full, unedited versions of the movies as they were released - but put up a disclaimer before it starts saying that it was made in a different era to different standards and some may now find offensive, or something along those lines.
Unless you're looking for offence one way or another, that seems like a sensible compromise. Don't compromise the integrity of the art, and if you're offended by a disclaimer you're just as sensitive as the worst of the woke.
If Puffin do the same, put a new page at the start with a disclaimer but leave the text of the book unaltered, that seems logical.
Seems resonable to me, Bart. As long as they don't start fiddling with the text.
By the way, I'm currently reading and enjoying The Person Of Color Of The Narcissus. Highly recommended.
Though there's a time and a place for fiddling with the text. I have a book I've not read yet but am meaning to get around to: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. It is a truth universally acknowledged that zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains.
That was actually Jane Austen's original first line, but her editor changed it.
I thought it was "I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me,"
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
That's just short of six million men of military age. Realistically, what proportion could you call up, without crashing the economy? Maybe 20% or so.
Given the way that Russia is fighting this war, I don't think that would be anywhere near enough.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
That's just short of six million men of military age. Realistically, what proportion could you call up, without crashing the economy? Maybe 20% or so.
Given the way that Russia is fighting this war, I don't think that would be anywhere near enough.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
I note Disney and Puffin seem to have come to similar conclusions for old content that contravenes the woke laws.
What do you mean? Not seen anything about Puffin.
Unless they've changed recently, Disney's solution is quite smart. They have on Disney+ the full, unedited versions of the movies as they were released - but put up a disclaimer before it starts saying that it was made in a different era to different standards and some may now find offensive, or something along those lines.
Unless you're looking for offence one way or another, that seems like a sensible compromise. Don't compromise the integrity of the art, and if you're offended by a disclaimer you're just as sensitive as the worst of the woke.
If Puffin do the same, put a new page at the start with a disclaimer but leave the text of the book unaltered, that seems logical.
Seems resonable to me, Bart. As long as they don't start fiddling with the text.
By the way, I'm currently reading and enjoying The Person Of Color Of The Narcissus. Highly recommended.
Though there's a time and a place for fiddling with the text. I have a book I've not read yet but am meaning to get around to: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. It is a truth universally acknowledged that zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains.
That was actually Jane Austen's original first line, but her editor changed it.
I thought it was "I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me,"
No, the original first line was Pēdīcābō ego vōs et irrumābō.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
No, I don't agree.
I suspect Russia will implode into a kind of civil war in which competing mafias scramble for control of key resources. Nobody will really want the nukes - too expensive and difficult to manage - although they may be used in strategic bargaining.
Russia, as we have known it for a thousand years, will no more exist than Yugoslavia does today.
This is the stupidest thing you have ever written on PB. I guess a weird form of “congrats” is in order
Wow! That's a pretty high bar, Leon.
It's taken many years of practice but well worth it.
Lol
Have you traveled widely in Russia? I have. Russian identity is REALLY strong throughout 90% of the country. It is quite strong over the border in neighboring countries like Belarus (and bits of Ukraine)
It is not “Yugoslavia”. It is rather more like Japan or England. Ancient and solid with tiny peripheral bits feeling a little less sure (Okinawa, Cornwall). It’s not going to break up into Muscovy and Yakutia any more than England will break up into Londinium and Northumbria
Interesting analysis a few months ago by bizarrely controversial Twitter academic Kamil Galeev (himself a Tatar from Kazan), which sort of has implications for devolution and indy questions here in the UK.
His thesis is that people spend too much time looking for cultural and linguistic differences when explaining why countries do or don't fall apart. In most cases what actually makes the difference is governance and power structures. If a region develops its own political freedom of action, institutions, fiscal model, decision making apparatus and civic identity then it can quite easily drift towards autonomy even if its culture and ethnicity are identical to the rest of the country. He quotes a few examples including the US war of independence, Latin America, some of the Arab monarchies, and a few others I can't remember.
Whereas if a region remains economically and institutionally closely tied to the mothership then regardless of religious, ethnic, linguistic or other differences it will rarely manage to reach escape velocity. Eg Corsica, Wales etc.
Obviously a cocktail of the two gives the biggest bang for buck.
Galeev's view is that Russia could break up through ever-increasing autonomy of regional governors and parliaments choosing to make their own decisions, especially the rich self-funding ones - notably Siberia.
I think we've seen some of this effect here in support for Scottish independence after devolution.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
Intderesting comment re Twitter thread ability. Any other pols good at that, just ouyt of interest, please? Don't need a catalogue, just an example or two.
I think his first impressive performances were in the first season of the Hundred. Would be funny if that much-maligned competition could be given partial credit for the emergence of a great English Test batter.
He was showing great talent in the Blast before that though part of the reason he didn't draw much excitement until later was his breakthrough was in 2020.
And we would still be largely unaware of his talent as a Test batsmen if Bairstow were better at golf.
A year ago I would have said 'How the hell do you break your leg playing golf', but as a year ago I managed to break both legs, one spectacularly, while just walking, I'm now surprised he didn't manage both arms as well.
How did you manage it, as a matter of interest ? Something I’d like to avoid, if at all possible.
Just went over on my ankle. Not much you can do to avoid it I'm guessing. Not an unknown combination of breaks either apparently. The leverage snapped the tibia at the knee and ankle and the Fibula half way down. I broke one of the bones in my other foot. The one the footballers always break, so trivial. The ligaments went completely between the tibia and fibula hence the fibula breaking as well. The tibia had to be screwed onto the fibula to bring it back into position and the bottom of the tibia had to be screwed back on. The other 3 breaks were left to heal by themselves in the cast.
All good now.
@Nigelb There is something you can do about it. Part of my physio at the latter end of sorting it out was to stand on one leg Apparently all the readjusting you do to maintain your balances builds up all the little muscles which in turn may prevent you going over on an ankle in the first place. At least that is what they told me.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine has unlimited resources.
But wars tend to go on for longer than people want or expect and given the strength of nationalist fervour that is rife in Russia atm I wouldn't be betting on the outcome based upon Russia running out of manpower.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
Quite. Black is being disingenuous in those Tweets - deliberately continuing the narrative against Forbes.
For instance: "How I, and others, are expected to have faith in a leader who unashamedly and publicly believes the love between my wife and I should not be legally recognised, is beyond me" - AFAIK Forbes wasn't saying that in 2014 (and certainly isn't now). There was civil partnership which was legally recognised.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
I have never said Russia has unlimited resources. it clearly doesn’t, not least in manpower - as you eloquently explain
It DOES have nukes and it has a “great power mentality” with added vodka. If the Russian state is threatened with humiliating defeat they will drop an H bomb, I reckon. Probably start with a test detonation first, then go from there
I note Disney and Puffin seem to have come to similar conclusions for old content that contravenes the woke laws.
What do you mean? Not seen anything about Puffin.
Unless they've changed recently, Disney's solution is quite smart. They have on Disney+ the full, unedited versions of the movies as they were released - but put up a disclaimer before it starts saying that it was made in a different era to different standards and some may now find offensive, or something along those lines.
Unless you're looking for offence one way or another, that seems like a sensible compromise. Don't compromise the integrity of the art, and if you're offended by a disclaimer you're just as sensitive as the worst of the woke.
If Puffin do the same, put a new page at the start with a disclaimer but leave the text of the book unaltered, that seems logical.
Seems resonable to me, Bart. As long as they don't start fiddling with the text.
By the way, I'm currently reading and enjoying The Person Of Color Of The Narcissus. Highly recommended.
Though there's a time and a place for fiddling with the text. I have a book I've not read yet but am meaning to get around to: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. It is a truth universally acknowledged that zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains.
That was actually Jane Austen's original first line, but her editor changed it.
I thought it was "I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me,"
I haven't read Earthly Powers in twenty five year. I wonder if it holds up?
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
OTOH the Russian population is enormous. Those statistics suggest there are over 12 million men in their thirties alone, most of whom will not be in the limited number of categories (those in reserved occupations, politically well connected, fled abroad, or part of the internal security apparatus,) that would be exempt from being called up and shipped off to be used as target practice by the Ukrainian Army. Forcible conscription, brutalising recruits and using them up to bleed the enemy white is all par for the course in the Russian way of waging war, as is an acceptance of almost limitless suffering on the part of the general population. A wider mobilisation might precipitate a mass revolt, but there's no sign of that happening any time in the near future.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
Intderesting comment re Twitter thread ability. Any other pols good at that, just ouyt of interest, please? Don't need a catalogue, just an example or two.
Actually no. None springs to mind. Which is an interesting thing in itself
Mhairi Black is young and has grown up with social media like Twitter. She knows how to use it really well. QED
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
No, I don't agree.
I suspect Russia will implode into a kind of civil war in which competing mafias scramble for control of key resources. Nobody will really want the nukes - too expensive and difficult to manage - although they may be used in strategic bargaining.
Russia, as we have known it for a thousand years, will no more exist than Yugoslavia does today.
This is the stupidest thing you have ever written on PB. I guess a weird form of “congrats” is in order
Wow! That's a pretty high bar, Leon.
It's taken many years of practice but well worth it.
Lol
Have you traveled widely in Russia? I have. Russian identity is REALLY strong throughout 90% of the country. It is quite strong over the border in neighboring countries like Belarus (and bits of Ukraine)
It is not “Yugoslavia”. It is rather more like Japan or England. Ancient and solid with tiny peripheral bits feeling a little less sure (Okinawa, Cornwall). It’s not going to break up into Muscovy and Yakutia any more than England will break up into Londinium and Northumbria
To be serious for a moment (shame, but one has to sometimes) I was thinking more in power than geographical terms. When States fail, they will often break down into smaller more basic units and given the existence of various mafias already within Russia it is not unreasonable, I think, to suggest that the new form of 'political' organisation will coalesce around these.
I accept that Russia is not as fragmented as, say, the old Yugoslavia. St Pete's may be very different from Moscow but they seem to share a similar nationalistic sentiment. However I don't think it is altogether absurd to imagine new 'political' forms emergimg around the existing mafias, whether geographically based or not.
Nevertheless you are right to suggest my knowledge of the country is slight and if you say I am being stupid, I defer. Stupidity is after all one subject on which you can truly claim to be an expert.
On the face of it, I would go for Ashten. She seems moderate and centre-left, and while I take @Theuniondivvie 's point about her private schooling her children, I am happy to vote for the many Labour MPs who do likewise. So not a dealbreaker for me.
Regan presents well and her background in marketing could help her make the case for independence.
That all said, she is something of a (flame-haired) dark horse, so like many other PBers I don't know a great deal about her.
Popped in quickly. Just learnt that there will be members' hustings, but all members only. AIUI this is separate from the broadcasters' ones (if any).
Televised ?
Members only, I did say: but, since you ask, and since the point is worth clarifying, even the online one is members' only. Ms Regan has agreed to a proposed broadcast hustings but I'm not sure what the state of play of the other two is.
Thanks but surely it is inconceivable that hustings will not be televised
This *is* a membership election, not an election for FM or a national one ór a Westminster election. The election for FM will be televised like any vote in the Holyrood Parliament.
Much like the recent Tory leadership election then? It was not guaranteed the new Tory leader would be PM, just extremely likely.
Not true. A vote for [edit, sorry] FM is *obligatory*. And have a look at the numbers.
But the candidate that wins the membership vote is going to be the candidate for FM, who will then go on to win that vote.
And if it is Forbes who wins the SNP membership vote she will likely end up FM of Scotland without most MSPs supporting her. Exactly the same problem Truss had when Tory members but not most MPs elected her UK PM
How can she end up as FM without the support of most MSPs?
She cannot
Can. See my post.
Edit: it depnds how mau abstain, and how many vote against. See my post, as I said, for an example.
The question is whether any group or groups are (a) big enough and (b) wanting to force an election by deadlocking the FM election.
It is extraordinary that it is even being discussed
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
On topic can anyone see Boris wanting to put in the hard yards of LOTO for 4-5 years, even to get another crack at Downing Street? I think he would be quite good at it, he has a quick wit and taking the piss out of SKS really won't be hard but its still a lot of work and foregone income. I think he will have had enough.
Depending on when the election after next is, and how well or badly the Conservatives do, I can't see it. Johnson will be 65 in 2029, the likely date of the second and final GE of the 'new 20s' (unless we decide to have another UK political crisis). In US terms, that's certainly far too young to be leader, but in the UK we do like our leaders to not also be eligible to draw their state pension (yes, yes, I know, it'll be 67 then or whatever but you get my point).
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
No, I don't agree.
I suspect Russia will implode into a kind of civil war in which competing mafias scramble for control of key resources. Nobody will really want the nukes - too expensive and difficult to manage - although they may be used in strategic bargaining.
Russia, as we have known it for a thousand years, will no more exist than Yugoslavia does today.
This is the stupidest thing you have ever written on PB. I guess a weird form of “congrats” is in order
Wow! That's a pretty high bar, Leon.
It's taken many years of practice but well worth it.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
OTOH the Russian population is enormous. Those statistics suggest there are over 12 million men in their thirties alone, most of whom will not be in the limited number of categories (those in reserved occupations, politically well connected, fled abroad, or part of the internal security apparatus,) that would be exempt from being called up and shipped off to be used as target practice by the Ukrainian Army. Forcible conscription, brutalising recruits and using them up to bleed the enemy white is all par for the course in the Russian way of waging war, as is an acceptance of almost limitless suffering on the part of the general population. A wider mobilisation might precipitate a mass revolt, but there's no sign of that happening any time in the near future.
But those troops need supplies: they need guns, and shells, and artillery pieces, and uniforms, and food, and fuel, and vehicles to drive in, and people to drive those vehicles.
You can't just pull out the entire male population and send them to the front line.
At the same time Russia is bleeding front line troops, they also need to divert resources into supplying them.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
OTOH the Russian population is enormous. Those statistics suggest there are over 12 million men in their thirties alone, most of whom will not be in the limited number of categories (those in reserved occupations, politically well connected, fled abroad, or part of the internal security apparatus,) that would be exempt from being called up and shipped off to be used as target practice by the Ukrainian Army. Forcible conscription, brutalising recruits and using them up to bleed the enemy white is all par for the course in the Russian way of waging war, as is an acceptance of almost limitless suffering on the part of the general population. A wider mobilisation might precipitate a mass revolt, but there's no sign of that happening any time in the near future.
Notably, the Russian government has been ensuring that the conscription carried out so far, falls more heavily upon various regions.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
The fact is we're all guessing, and at times we've all been wrong. If I tally my beliefs vs what actually happened:
- I expected the invasion and wasn't surprised by that - I thought Ukraine would be overrun in days and was surprised by their resilience - When Russia withdrew from Kiev I expected stalemate but actually Russia went on to capture Severodonetsk - I was surprised like most by the rapid Ukrainian advances in the NE but not surprised when Kherson fell - But then unpleasantly surprised at how Russia fought back and started to advance again in the East
Now most people expect stalemate but a few expect a successful Ukrainian offensive in spring. It's really too difficult to tell.
On the face of it, I would go for Ashten. She seems moderate and centre-left, and while I take @Theuniondivvie 's point about her private schooling her children, I am happy to vote for the many Labour MPs who do likewise. So not a dealbreaker for me.
Regan presents well and her background in marketing could help her make the case for independence.
That all said, she is something of a (flame-haired) dark horse, so like many other PBers I don't know a great deal about her.
Popped in quickly. Just learnt that there will be members' hustings, but all members only. AIUI this is separate from the broadcasters' ones (if any).
Televised ?
Members only, I did say: but, since you ask, and since the point is worth clarifying, even the online one is members' only. Ms Regan has agreed to a proposed broadcast hustings but I'm not sure what the state of play of the other two is.
Thanks but surely it is inconceivable that hustings will not be televised
This *is* a membership election, not an election for FM or a national one ór a Westminster election. The election for FM will be televised like any vote in the Holyrood Parliament.
Much like the recent Tory leadership election then? It was not guaranteed the new Tory leader would be PM, just extremely likely.
Not true. A vote for [edit, sorry] FM is *obligatory*. And have a look at the numbers.
But the candidate that wins the membership vote is going to be the candidate for FM, who will then go on to win that vote.
And if it is Forbes who wins the SNP membership vote she will likely end up FM of Scotland without most MSPs supporting her. Exactly the same problem Truss had when Tory members but not most MPs elected her UK PM
How can she end up as FM without the support of most MSPs?
She cannot
Can. See my post.
Edit: it depnds how mau abstain, and how many vote against. See my post, as I said, for an example.
The question is whether any group or groups are (a) big enough and (b) wanting to force an election by deadlocking the FM election.
It is extraordinary that it is even being discussed
On the contrary. It's normal for the Holyrood Parliament where absolute majorities are very unusual. Indeed baked in from the start given the voting system.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
Intderesting comment re Twitter thread ability. Any other pols good at that, just ouyt of interest, please? Don't need a catalogue, just an example or two.
Actually no. None springs to mind. Which is an interesting thing in itself
Mhairi Black is young and has grown up with social media like Twitter. She knows how to use it really well. QED
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
OTOH the Russian population is enormous. Those statistics suggest there are over 12 million men in their thirties alone, most of whom will not be in the limited number of categories (those in reserved occupations, politically well connected, fled abroad, or part of the internal security apparatus,) that would be exempt from being called up and shipped off to be used as target practice by the Ukrainian Army. Forcible conscription, brutalising recruits and using them up to bleed the enemy white is all par for the course in the Russian way of waging war, as is an acceptance of almost limitless suffering on the part of the general population. A wider mobilisation might precipitate a mass revolt, but there's no sign of that happening any time in the near future.
But those troops need supplies: they need guns, and shells, and artillery pieces, and uniforms, and food, and fuel, and vehicles to drive in, and people to drive those vehicles.
You can't just pull out the entire male population and send them to the front line.
At the same time Russia is bleeding front line troops, they also need to divert resources into supplying them.
According to various Russian sources, they have been struggling to train & equip the more limited mobilisation they have actually carried out.
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
I think his first impressive performances were in the first season of the Hundred. Would be funny if that much-maligned competition could be given partial credit for the emergence of a great English Test batter.
He was showing great talent in the Blast before that though part of the reason he didn't draw much excitement until later was his breakthrough was in 2020.
And we would still be largely unaware of his talent as a Test batsmen if Bairstow were better at golf.
A year ago I would have said 'How the hell do you break your leg playing golf', but as a year ago I managed to break both legs, one spectacularly, while just walking, I'm now surprised he didn't manage both arms as well.
One day I expect I will learn how you incur such an injury but for the moment I'm happy just to laugh and smile at the fortuitous opportunity for the talented young Brook.
The question is what happens when Bairstow returns? You cannot drop HB. Foakes is the obvious candidate but he's a better keeper than JB and he's done well enough with the bat to make it difficult to drop him too. What's more the England batters, al six of them, look so strong you hardly need a seventh.
Personally I'd make Bairstow wait until someone loses form. He doesn't obviously improve the team.
Maybe he can work on his golf?
I would drop Leach and tell Joe Root he is now an all-rounder.
That is risible. One wonders how much longer most, if not all, the dead tree titles have to go before they turn up their toes and go the way of The Independent, but you really do have to wonder where The National is getting the money from to keep paying for a print run. For comparison, daily sales of the most popular Scottish title, the Daily Record, are down to about 60,000.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
I don't see how Putin testing a nuke would change anyone's calculus. If anything it could be taken as a demonstration of his unwillingness to use one for real.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
Intderesting comment re Twitter thread ability. Any other pols good at that, just ouyt of interest, please? Don't need a catalogue, just an example or two.
Actually no. None springs to mind. Which is an interesting thing in itself
Mhairi Black is young and has grown up with social media like Twitter. She knows how to use it really well. QED
Thank you.
Twitter says that brutal tweet-thread has been seen by 650,000 people. That’s huge
By contrast, how many people read an article in the Scotsman, or the National, how many Scots even watch politics on STV?
This is the enormous potency of social media, and Mhairi Black seems particularly good at deploying it
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
Can’t really argue with any of this
The Cold War happened for a reason. A hot war meant total annihilation for everyone, so an armed, nasty but essentially peaceful stand off was better. Ukraine will be divided between West and East as Europe was divided post 1945 (and Korea)
Even if Putin is toppled, it is now incredibly unlikely he will be toppled by a peacenik pro-Western successor happy to give up Crimea. The peacenik would then be toppled in turn by some mad warmongering Russian Hitler. Great
100,000-200,000 Russian men have died, defeat is now unthinkable. It’s like us abandoning HS2. Sunk Cost
Sunk cost for the Putin regime, yes. However the price of the next hundred thousand or two hundred thousand, or three... is what many others in Moscow are now considering. There are less than 9 million men in Russia between the ages of 20 and 30, and leaving aside the about a million of those who have left (probably the brightest and the best), and those who are not Russian citizens, then the number that are healthy and Russian (as opposed to one of the minorities) is probably not much more than three million. If they conscript all of them, the economy goes into meltdown. Even if they still did that, then they lack weapons or logistics to get them to the front and keep them alive when they get there. Also their morale and skills are very low. Meanwhile Ukraine has a smaller number of increasingly skilled and well equipped troops who have the will to win, and are fully backed by their other immediate neighbours. Russia lost in Afghanistan, even though the West was far away and the Mujahedeen pitifully equipped guerillas with no functioning state at all.
To address the "cling hold to nurse for fear of getting something worse" argument. It may well be that the immediate successor of Putin would be one of the Kremlin consigliere, like Mishustin, or that the rumours about Dmitri Patrushev being the "clean handed Silovik" are true, but once Shoigu is removed, my guess is that the Stavka will come back at the Siloviki and a much more broad based regime would emerge, probably releasing Navalny as a figure head. The problem is that this process is not controllable or even predictable by any of the factions and once the scorpions start to sting, then you end up with a jar of dead scorpions. The reason Putin survives at all is that there is no one else who could impose order on the Vory, Yet Putin knows that there is also a risk of military coup, which is why he keeps Shoigu and the other generals in place despite their corruption and uselessness. Were Prigrozhin to try something, he would be dead within a New York minute.
Watch what happens to Kadyrov. Putin would not survive his fall.
The regime is in a zombie state, clinging to impossible hopes. If the ZSU achieve a major breakthrough, like Melitopol or Luhansk, then the Putin house of cards falls rapidly.
That is risible. One wonders how much longer most, if not all, the dead tree titles have to go before they turn up their toes and go the way of The Independent, but you really do have to wonder where The National is getting the money from to keep paying for a print run. For comparison, daily sales of the most popular Scottish title, the Daily Record, are down to about 60,000.
It piggybacks on the Herald for the basic stuff, I believe. Like the Indy and the i used to?? Just different politics from the Herald. But that 345 subs .. are those stats for paper ones only?
The online subs seem much healthier - there must be at least a dozen folk on PB alone who take it, and CArlotta for sure must have it online given her apparent location.
And talking of stupid, England have somehow managed to lose the cricket semi to South Africa.
Insane.
They lost it in overs 10-15 where their run rate just collapsed and the whole match swung SA's way. Excellent bowing on their part but jeez, that is disappointing.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
The fact is we're all guessing, and at times we've all been wrong. If I tally my beliefs vs what actually happened:
- I expected the invasion and wasn't surprised by that - I thought Ukraine would be overrun in days and was surprised by their resilience - When Russia withdrew from Kiev I expected stalemate but actually Russia went on to capture Severodonetsk - I was surprised like most by the rapid Ukrainian advances in the NE but not surprised when Kherson fell - But then unpleasantly surprised at how Russia fought back and started to advance again in the East
Now most people expect stalemate but a few expect a successful Ukrainian offensive in spring. It's really too difficult to tell.
It is very unpredictable. I don't know what will happen and don't know what is for the best (which I define as the course that minimises human suffering).
Curiously, PB.com is full of people who do know what will happen and are very convinced that they are right.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
OTOH the Russian population is enormous. Those statistics suggest there are over 12 million men in their thirties alone, most of whom will not be in the limited number of categories (those in reserved occupations, politically well connected, fled abroad, or part of the internal security apparatus,) that would be exempt from being called up and shipped off to be used as target practice by the Ukrainian Army. Forcible conscription, brutalising recruits and using them up to bleed the enemy white is all par for the course in the Russian way of waging war, as is an acceptance of almost limitless suffering on the part of the general population. A wider mobilisation might precipitate a mass revolt, but there's no sign of that happening any time in the near future.
But those troops need supplies: they need guns, and shells, and artillery pieces, and uniforms, and food, and fuel, and vehicles to drive in, and people to drive those vehicles.
You can't just pull out the entire male population and send them to the front line.
At the same time Russia is bleeding front line troops, they also need to divert resources into supplying them.
As well as all the tanks, trucks and planes, the Americans delivered millions of tons of food to Russia in World War 2, along with 15 million pairs of boots.
The amount of resources a large army needs is staggering. Ukraine has some of the largest and richest countries in the world giving not just weapons, but other kit as well - the Nordic countries gave them large amounts of winter clothes in the autumn. And we've been able to do this whilst barely increasing our military output.
Russia has itself, Iran, and North Korea providing lethal aid, along with perhaps China and South Africa giving limited amounts of non-lethal aid.
I also wonder how long it will be before Russia starts running out of trucks for various reasons (and sorry Topping, this is a possibility).
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
(a) It's a hell of a lot easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one (b) Russia's population pyramid looked rather different in 1939 than it does in 2023 (c) Russia was only able to fight then because it was supplied by the West
I expected Russia to win the war. Or at least, I expected them to occupy the country East of the Dnieper. And that, I thought, would be the easy bit. Because the initial invasion is usually the easy bit, and it is the occupation - and the slow attrition that comes with it - that kills you.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
Her attack is specious in parts (I know you are not defending its contents, merely praising its delivery). The equal marriage legislation was not just about marriage under the law (which is what Black states); if it had been, it would have been a great deal less controversial. It effectively forced Churches to solemnise gay marriages, and that could be considered a lessening of religious freedom.
I think his first impressive performances were in the first season of the Hundred. Would be funny if that much-maligned competition could be given partial credit for the emergence of a great English Test batter.
He was showing great talent in the Blast before that though part of the reason he didn't draw much excitement until later was his breakthrough was in 2020.
And we would still be largely unaware of his talent as a Test batsmen if Bairstow were better at golf.
A year ago I would have said 'How the hell do you break your leg playing golf', but as a year ago I managed to break both legs, one spectacularly, while just walking, I'm now surprised he didn't manage both arms as well.
One day I expect I will learn how you incur such an injury but for the moment I'm happy just to laugh and smile at the fortuitous opportunity for the talented young Brook.
The question is what happens when Bairstow returns? You cannot drop HB. Foakes is the obvious candidate but he's a better keeper than JB and he's done well enough with the bat to make it difficult to drop him too. What's more the England batters, al six of them, look so strong you hardly need a seventh.
Personally I'd make Bairstow wait until someone loses form. He doesn't obviously improve the team.
Maybe he can work on his golf?
I would drop Leach and tell Joe Root he is now an all-rounder.
See where you are coming from but overseas it invites the opposition to prepare a bunsen burner, spin being the one department in which they are superior. You might get away with it in England, but even here it unbalances the side so I'm not sure it works.
Mhairi Black MP🏳️🌈 @MhairiBlack If your faith says you cannot drink alcohol, then don’t. If your religion says you cannot enter same sex marriage, then don’t. If your religion does not allow for abortion, then do not have one.
If your faith says don't commit murder...
Black is basically saying, these things are off-limits for politicians to vote on.
But Ms Black is not a candidate, at leastd for the leadership.
Black seems to be saying that anyone of faith is not allowed to impose their values on to wider society. But that is precisely what politics is.
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
On Al Jazeera English, here in Bangkok (which is very good on the Ukraine War) they just quoted the age-old political-military maxim: “Russia is never as strong as you fear, nor as weak as you hope”
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
And the point I was trying to make was that even if they don't elect Forbes, I can't see her being tolerated by establishment SNP types anymore (as distinct from the membership).
They can suspend her for breaking SNP rules for her comments on Trans people, I think.
This all seems crazy given she was given such an important position by Sturgeon.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
OTOH the Russian population is enormous. Those statistics suggest there are over 12 million men in their thirties alone, most of whom will not be in the limited number of categories (those in reserved occupations, politically well connected, fled abroad, or part of the internal security apparatus,) that would be exempt from being called up and shipped off to be used as target practice by the Ukrainian Army. Forcible conscription, brutalising recruits and using them up to bleed the enemy white is all par for the course in the Russian way of waging war, as is an acceptance of almost limitless suffering on the part of the general population. A wider mobilisation might precipitate a mass revolt, but there's no sign of that happening any time in the near future.
But those troops need supplies: they need guns, and shells, and artillery pieces, and uniforms, and food, and fuel, and vehicles to drive in, and people to drive those vehicles.
You can't just pull out the entire male population and send them to the front line.
At the same time Russia is bleeding front line troops, they also need to divert resources into supplying them.
You send them into battle with antique weapons. You beg, buy, borrow and smuggle from the Iranians, the North Koreans, and (through third party dealers, with tacit acquiescence from the state,) the Chinese. You ramp domestic production. You don't particularly care if the Ukrainians bleed you at a rate of five or ten to one - your own people are expendable - so long as the Ukrainians start running out of men, or willpower, or Western patience, first. If you're Putin and you want to live, you don't give in.
Russia has two big advantages. They have a lot more people than Ukraine, and there's no prospect of Ukraine launching a successful conquest of Russia and imposing a settlement by force. So, they keep going. I hope and believe that Russia is too weak to win outright, but I also think that the Russian leadership has too much invested in this enterprise, and too much in the way of resources, to be beaten outright and ejected from occupied Ukraine. Thus, the logical endpoint is some kind of stalemate. The only question is where the ceasefire line ends up being drawn.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
The fact is we're all guessing, and at times we've all been wrong. If I tally my beliefs vs what actually happened:
- I expected the invasion and wasn't surprised by that - I thought Ukraine would be overrun in days and was surprised by their resilience - When Russia withdrew from Kiev I expected stalemate but actually Russia went on to capture Severodonetsk - I was surprised like most by the rapid Ukrainian advances in the NE but not surprised when Kherson fell - But then unpleasantly surprised at how Russia fought back and started to advance again in the East
Now most people expect stalemate but a few expect a successful Ukrainian offensive in spring. It's really too difficult to tell.
It is very unpredictable. I don't know what will happen and don't know what is for the best (which I define as the course that minimises human suffering).
Curiously, PB.com is full of people who do know what will happen and are very convinced that they are right.
I think you misread people. I don't see anyone on here who claims to *know* what will happen, although semi-educated guesses can be made in certain directions (for instance, I really, really doubt Russia will use nukes over the Ukraine issue, and could argue that case).
But as for people being convinced they're correct: I think it's more complex. I want not just peace, but to avoid this happening again. That's the destination I want to get to. And given Russia's actions over the last two decades, it seems ensuring they get nothing from this evil escapade is the best way of doing this. It has the added advantages of sending a message that nuclear blackmail won't work.
And that's ignoring the morality of the situation.
If you want to make a coherent argument otherwise, feel free.
But if you want to 'minimise human suffering' in the short term, the answer would be just to hand Ukraine over to Russia. I'd argue that would cause more suffering in the medium and long term, both in Ukraine and elsewhere.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
And the point I was trying to make was that even if they don't elect Forbes, I can't see her being tolerated by establishment SNP types anymore (as distinct from the membership).
They can suspend her for breaking SNP rules for her comments on Trans people, I think.
This all seems crazy given she was given such an important position by Sturgeon.
Oh, and I'd missed that Alex Neil has stated Yousaf missed the Gay Marriage vote due to "pressure from the Mosque".
What a disaster. Maybe the Scotch experts were right...
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
Her attack is specious in parts (I know you are not defending its contents, merely praising its delivery). The equal marriage legislation was not just about marriage under the law (which is what Black states); if it had been, it would have been a great deal less controversial. It effectively forced Churches to solemnise gay marriages, and that could be considered a lessening of religious freedom.
You sure?
In Scotland marriage *is* primarily a legal contract, not a religious sacrament. Always has been. One reason why divorce was easier. PLus in a sense it *increased* religious freedom (admittedly for heterosexuals only) because people didn't have to go to the Church of Scotland to be married.
The religious bit is a 'nice to have'. But by the same token, and the lack of an Established Church of Scotland since the 1920s, it's even further removed from the marriage issue in itself.
One step closer to escape from this hostage situation. The rolling strikes make it impossible for those of us reliant on trains to plan anything more than two weeks in advance. The sooner they're all over, the better.
Was a new deal offered recently? I don't remember reading anything saying so.
No - it's 5% for 22/23 and 4% for 23/24 - the same deal as the TSSA accepted from Network Rail in December.
So TSSA has now agreed deals with both Network Rail and the train companies.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
OTOH the Russian population is enormous. Those statistics suggest there are over 12 million men in their thirties alone, most of whom will not be in the limited number of categories (those in reserved occupations, politically well connected, fled abroad, or part of the internal security apparatus,) that would be exempt from being called up and shipped off to be used as target practice by the Ukrainian Army. Forcible conscription, brutalising recruits and using them up to bleed the enemy white is all par for the course in the Russian way of waging war, as is an acceptance of almost limitless suffering on the part of the general population. A wider mobilisation might precipitate a mass revolt, but there's no sign of that happening any time in the near future.
But those troops need supplies: they need guns, and shells, and artillery pieces, and uniforms, and food, and fuel, and vehicles to drive in, and people to drive those vehicles.
You can't just pull out the entire male population and send them to the front line.
At the same time Russia is bleeding front line troops, they also need to divert resources into supplying them.
You send them into battle with antique weapons. You beg, buy, borrow and smuggle from the Iranians, the North Koreans, and (through third party dealers, with tacit acquiescence from the state,) the Chinese. You ramp domestic production. You don't particularly care if the Ukrainians bleed you at a rate of five or ten to one - your own people are expendable - so long as the Ukrainians start running out of men, or willpower, or Western patience, first. If you're Putin and you want to live, you don't give in.
Russia has two big advantages. They have a lot more people than Ukraine, and there's no prospect of Ukraine launching a successful conquest of Russia and imposing a settlement by force. So, they keep going. I hope and believe that Russia is too weak to win outright, but I also think that the Russian leadership has too much invested in this enterprise, and too much in the way of resources, to be beaten outright and ejected from occupied Ukraine. Thus, the logical endpoint is some kind of stalemate. The only question is where the ceasefire line ends up being drawn.
Reminds me of the Korean War after China got involved!
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
And the point I was trying to make was that even if they don't elect Forbes, I can't see her being tolerated by establishment SNP types anymore (as distinct from the membership).
They can suspend her for breaking SNP rules for her comments on Trans people, I think.
This all seems crazy given she was given such an important position by Sturgeon.
Oh, and I'd missed that Alex Neil has stated Yousaf missed the Gay Marriage vote due to "pressure from the Mosque".
What a disaster. Maybe the Scotch experts were right...
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
If we assume for a moment that Russia has to rely on its own resources, and does not receive large quantities of supplies from China or elsewhere, then its industrial production potential is fairly modest. Their rate of artillery fire is markedly down compared to the battle over Severodonetsk, because they simply can't manufacture enough artillery shells to maintain that rate of fire.
Now, I have some worries that I have expressed in the past about the West not increasing the rate of manufacture of ammunition and military equipment, but I think we have much greater potential to increase production than Russia does.
Everything changes if China decides to supply Russia with ammunition and other military equipment. That is essentially the decisive factor in the war, and I've become somewhat alarmed at the western warnings on this point. They sound similar to those made to Russia before the invasion itself a year ago - i.e. futile.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
And the point I was trying to make was that even if they don't elect Forbes, I can't see her being tolerated by establishment SNP types anymore (as distinct from the membership).
They can suspend her for breaking SNP rules for her comments on Trans people, I think.
This all seems crazy given she was given such an important position by Sturgeon.
Is Ash Regan regarded as anti-establishment given her opposition to Sturgeon's gender recognition bill?
The SNP could end up split three ways between the woke, the centrists and the conservatives.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
Her attack is specious in parts (I know you are not defending its contents, merely praising its delivery). The equal marriage legislation was not just about marriage under the law (which is what Black states); if it had been, it would have been a great deal less controversial. It effectively forced Churches to solemnise gay marriages, and that could be considered a lessening of religious freedom.
You sure?
In Scotland marriage *is* primarily a legal contract, not a religious sacrament. Always has been. One reason why divorce was easier. PLus in a sense it *increased* religious freedom (admittedly for heterosexuals only) because people didn't have to go to the Church of Scotland to be married.
The religious bit is a 'nice to have'. But by the same token, and the lack of an Established Church of Scotland since the 1920s, it's even further removed from the marriage issue in itself.
Wasn't it a legal contract between male and female whereas civil partnership, also a legal contract, was available to all?
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
(a) It's a hell of a lot easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one (b) Russia's population pyramid looked rather different in 1939 than it does in 2023 (c) Russia was only able to fight then because it was supplied by the West
I expected Russia to win the war. Or at least, I expected them to occupy the country East of the Dnieper. And that, I thought, would be the easy bit. Because the initial invasion is usually the easy bit, and it is the occupation - and the slow attrition that comes with it - that kills you.
The nation, both Putin and the population, doesn't seem to be in the mood to call it a day, indeed they believe that the war is an existential fight for their country. That puts the boot on the other foot in your defensive/offensive dynamic because to Russians, they are fighting for their existence.
And I am not sure of the precedent of any country running out of soldiers in war although perhaps Germany in 1945 was an example of this. But Russia is enormous, both its economy and its population and population pyramids aside I can't see them running out of troops in this instance.
My point is there have been umpteen posts forecasting the defeat of Russia (even if anyone knew what they meant by that) for one reason or another and I am wary of such forecasts.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
No, I don't agree.
I suspect Russia will implode into a kind of civil war in which competing mafias scramble for control of key resources. Nobody will really want the nukes - too expensive and difficult to manage - although they may be used in strategic bargaining.
Russia, as we have known it for a thousand years, will no more exist than Yugoslavia does today.
This is the stupidest thing you have ever written on PB. I guess a weird form of “congrats” is in order
Wow! That's a pretty high bar, Leon.
It's taken many years of practice but well worth it.
Lol
Have you traveled widely in Russia? I have. Russian identity is REALLY strong throughout 90% of the country. It is quite strong over the border in neighboring countries like Belarus (and bits of Ukraine)
It is not “Yugoslavia”. It is rather more like Japan or England. Ancient and solid with tiny peripheral bits feeling a little less sure (Okinawa, Cornwall). It’s not going to break up into Muscovy and Yakutia any more than England will break up into Londinium and Northumbria
To be serious for a moment (shame, but one has to sometimes) I was thinking more in power than geographical terms. When States fail, they will often break down into smaller more basic units and given the existence of various mafias already within Russia it is not unreasonable, I think, to suggest that the new form of 'political' organisation will coalesce around these.
I accept that Russia is not as fragmented as, say, the old Yugoslavia. St Pete's may be very different from Moscow but they seem to share a similar nationalistic sentiment. However I don't think it is altogether absurd to imagine new 'political' forms emergimg around the existing mafias, whether geographically based or not.
Nevertheless you are right to suggest my knowledge of the country is slight and if you say I am being stupid, I defer. Stupidity is after all one subject on which you can truly claim to be an expert.
I like your theory, clearly one of many possible scenarios, but a valid one nonetheless. Come to think of it I am surprised Leon didn't hitch up his skirts and run with your doomladen (for Russia) outcome.
There are two tweets in that Mhairi Black twitter-thread against Forbes (now read by 720,000 people) which feel particularly devastating to me
“Had a candidate said they do not believe in racially mixed marriages we would rightly be horrified - so why is my marriage still considered fair game? (7/10)
“ How I, and others, are expected to have faith in a leader who unashamedly and publicly believes the love between my wife and I should not be legally recognised, is beyond me (8/10)
Again, I am not arguing for or against the points, merely paying respect to the coolly angry and punchy way she phrases her argument. These are major blows. Uppercuts. This is gravely damaging to Forbes
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
(a) It's a hell of a lot easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one (b) Russia's population pyramid looked rather different in 1939 than it does in 2023 (c) Russia was only able to fight then because it was supplied by the West
I expected Russia to win the war. Or at least, I expected them to occupy the country East of the Dnieper. And that, I thought, would be the easy bit. Because the initial invasion is usually the easy bit, and it is the occupation - and the slow attrition that comes with it - that kills you.
The nation, both Putin and the population, doesn't seem to be in the mood to call it a day, indeed they believe that the war is an existential fight for their country. That puts the boot on the other foot in your defensive/offensive dynamic because to Russians, they are fighting for their existence.
And I am not sure of the precedent of any country running out of soldiers in war although perhaps Germany in 1945 was an example of this. But Russia is enormous, both its economy and its population and population pyramids aside I can't see them running out of troops in this instance.
My point is there have been umpteen posts forecasting the defeat of Russia (even if anyone knew what they meant by that) for one reason or another and I am wary of such forecasts.
Hitherto, people who are pessimistic about Russia's chances have been proved a good deal more right than those who are optimistic.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
And the point I was trying to make was that even if they don't elect Forbes, I can't see her being tolerated by establishment SNP types anymore (as distinct from the membership).
They can suspend her for breaking SNP rules for her comments on Trans people, I think.
This all seems crazy given she was given such an important position by Sturgeon.
Is Ash Regan regarded as anti-establishment given her opposition to Sturgeon's gender recognition bill?
The SNP could end up split three ways between the woke, the centrists and the conservatives.
The mushy middle is a dangerous place. I would worry for Regan that the anti-wokers will plump for Forbes, the wokey set will plump for Humza, and Regan will be left with what's left. Is there much of 'what's left'? I'm not sure there is.
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
OTOH the Russian population is enormous. Those statistics suggest there are over 12 million men in their thirties alone, most of whom will not be in the limited number of categories (those in reserved occupations, politically well connected, fled abroad, or part of the internal security apparatus,) that would be exempt from being called up and shipped off to be used as target practice by the Ukrainian Army. Forcible conscription, brutalising recruits and using them up to bleed the enemy white is all par for the course in the Russian way of waging war, as is an acceptance of almost limitless suffering on the part of the general population. A wider mobilisation might precipitate a mass revolt, but there's no sign of that happening any time in the near future.
Notably, the Russian government has been ensuring that the conscription carried out so far, falls more heavily upon various regions.
Why are they doing that?
Presumably to pick the low hanging fruit first, but if the Russian government feels compelled to start rounding up young men in the major cities then they will do it. It'll simply result in larger protests and the more widespread use of brutality to suppress them, but since when was Putin or his security apparatus morally troubled about beating up or murdering opponents?
There are two tweets in that Mhairi Black twitter-thread against Forbes (now read by 720,000 people) which feel particularly devastating to me
“Had a candidate said they do not believe in racially mixed marriages we would rightly be horrified - so why is my marriage still considered fair game? (7/10)
“ How I, and others, are expected to have faith in a leader who unashamedly and publicly believes the love between my wife and I should not be legally recognised, is beyond me (8/10)
Again, I am not arguing for or against the points, merely paying respect to the coolly angry and punchy way she phrases her argument. These are major blows. Uppercuts. This is gravely damaging to Forbes
After that post, a Forbes win is nailed on isn't it?
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
I don't see how Putin testing a nuke would change anyone's calculus. If anything it could be taken as a demonstration of his unwillingness to use one for real.
And China, India, Brazil all suddenly distance themselves from Moscow.
Deploying a nuke is the end game for Moscow. Nukes can't stop you being the ultimate pariah state.
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
If we assume for a moment that Russia has to rely on its own resources, and does not receive large quantities of supplies from China or elsewhere, then its industrial production potential is fairly modest. Their rate of artillery fire is markedly down compared to the battle over Severodonetsk, because they simply can't manufacture enough artillery shells to maintain that rate of fire.
Now, I have some worries that I have expressed in the past about the West not increasing the rate of manufacture of ammunition and military equipment, but I think we have much greater potential to increase production than Russia does.
Everything changes if China decides to supply Russia with ammunition and other military equipment. That is essentially the decisive factor in the war, and I've become somewhat alarmed at the western warnings on this point. They sound similar to those made to Russia before the invasion itself a year ago - i.e. futile.
And although these numbers are much lower than demand, we've barely started ramping up. Russia faces even greater problems given the rate they're burning through artillery, and the fact their tactics seem to rely much more on heavy artillery barrages.
China's the big question, but would they lose more than they gain from openly helping Russia?
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
OTOH the Russian population is enormous. Those statistics suggest there are over 12 million men in their thirties alone, most of whom will not be in the limited number of categories (those in reserved occupations, politically well connected, fled abroad, or part of the internal security apparatus,) that would be exempt from being called up and shipped off to be used as target practice by the Ukrainian Army. Forcible conscription, brutalising recruits and using them up to bleed the enemy white is all par for the course in the Russian way of waging war, as is an acceptance of almost limitless suffering on the part of the general population. A wider mobilisation might precipitate a mass revolt, but there's no sign of that happening any time in the near future.
But those troops need supplies: they need guns, and shells, and artillery pieces, and uniforms, and food, and fuel, and vehicles to drive in, and people to drive those vehicles.
You can't just pull out the entire male population and send them to the front line.
At the same time Russia is bleeding front line troops, they also need to divert resources into supplying them.
You send them into battle with antique weapons. You beg, buy, borrow and smuggle from the Iranians, the North Koreans, and (through third party dealers, with tacit acquiescence from the state,) the Chinese. You ramp domestic production. You don't particularly care if the Ukrainians bleed you at a rate of five or ten to one - your own people are expendable - so long as the Ukrainians start running out of men, or willpower, or Western patience, first. If you're Putin and you want to live, you don't give in.
Russia has two big advantages. They have a lot more people than Ukraine, and there's no prospect of Ukraine launching a successful conquest of Russia and imposing a settlement by force. So, they keep going. I hope and believe that Russia is too weak to win outright, but I also think that the Russian leadership has too much invested in this enterprise, and too much in the way of resources, to be beaten outright and ejected from occupied Ukraine. Thus, the logical endpoint is some kind of stalemate. The only question is where the ceasefire line ends up being drawn.
That strategy was ultimately a failure for Russia when it fought Japan, and in WWI.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
I mean I wouldn't vote for her but there are 1,000 reasons why someone might disagree with, say, sex outside marriage. Essentially Black is saying that religious belief is not a valid one of those. For everyone who voted against gay marriage is Black saying each should be questioned as to their motives and those she deems invalid should be discounted.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case (I probably agree with you) I’m merely pointing out that Mhairi Black is a pretty notable figure in the SNP and that is an acutely damaging attack by her, on Forbes, not least because Black really knows how to build a cumulative Twitter thread (an important skill, these days)
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
Her attack is specious in parts (I know you are not defending its contents, merely praising its delivery). The equal marriage legislation was not just about marriage under the law (which is what Black states); if it had been, it would have been a great deal less controversial. It effectively forced Churches to solemnise gay marriages, and that could be considered a lessening of religious freedom.
You sure?
In Scotland marriage *is* primarily a legal contract, not a religious sacrament. Always has been. One reason why divorce was easier. PLus in a sense it *increased* religious freedom (admittedly for heterosexuals only) because people didn't have to go to the Church of Scotland to be married.
The religious bit is a 'nice to have'. But by the same token, and the lack of an Established Church of Scotland since the 1920s, it's even further removed from the marriage issue in itself.
Wasn't it a legal contract between male and female whereas civil partnership, also a legal contract, was available to all?
Talking about 200+ years ago, right down to the present day. Although the Kirk got sniffy about marriage without a minister but by cohanitation and/or public agreement, and the English elite was frantic in its opposition to such things (vide Gretna). A marriage by the minister was one by public agreement rather than divine sacrament though the prayer was important to many folk. Presbyterians don't regard marriage as a sacrament. So my grandparents were married in their sitting room IIRC - though the minister came along to do it (poor people were married in his sitting room quite often and then went off).
Civil partnership in Scotland was primarily for gay folk (only) as an alternative for marriage per se. But a lot of heterosexual couples wanted it too - for some reason I don't understand it took some time for that to be ironed out and it has now been.
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
(a) It's a hell of a lot easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one (b) Russia's population pyramid looked rather different in 1939 than it does in 2023 (c) Russia was only able to fight then because it was supplied by the West
I expected Russia to win the war. Or at least, I expected them to occupy the country East of the Dnieper. And that, I thought, would be the easy bit. Because the initial invasion is usually the easy bit, and it is the occupation - and the slow attrition that comes with it - that kills you.
The nation, both Putin and the population, doesn't seem to be in the mood to call it a day, indeed they believe that the war is an existential fight for their country. That puts the boot on the other foot in your defensive/offensive dynamic because to Russians, they are fighting for their existence.
And I am not sure of the precedent of any country running out of soldiers in war although perhaps Germany in 1945 was an example of this. But Russia is enormous, both its economy and its population and population pyramids aside I can't see them running out of troops in this instance.
My point is there have been umpteen posts forecasting the defeat of Russia (even if anyone knew what they meant by that) for one reason or another and I am wary of such forecasts.
Hitherto, people who are pessimistic about Russia's chances have been proved a good deal more right than those who are optimistic.
What we are seeing is Russia conducting an increasingly "broken back" war. Aviation has been reduced massively. The navy seems to be out of the game. Tanks and artillery are showing up less and less - many Russian sourced complaints about shell shortages for artillery, and maintenance issue for the artillery systems.
Human wave tactics, Iranian (fairly low tech) drones - these are adaptions to lost capabilities.
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
If we assume for a moment that Russia has to rely on its own resources, and does not receive large quantities of supplies from China or elsewhere, then its industrial production potential is fairly modest. Their rate of artillery fire is markedly down compared to the battle over Severodonetsk, because they simply can't manufacture enough artillery shells to maintain that rate of fire.
Now, I have some worries that I have expressed in the past about the West not increasing the rate of manufacture of ammunition and military equipment, but I think we have much greater potential to increase production than Russia does.
Everything changes if China decides to supply Russia with ammunition and other military equipment. That is essentially the decisive factor in the war, and I've become somewhat alarmed at the western warnings on this point. They sound similar to those made to Russia before the invasion itself a year ago - i.e. futile.
You see this is the type of comment that I take issue with:
" its industrial production potential is fairly modest. Their rate of artillery fire is markedly down compared to the battle over Severodonetsk, because they simply can't manufacture enough artillery shells to maintain that rate of fire"
Jeez I only listened to one of those (excellent) Ukraine podcasts on the BBC (?) where whichever expert it was (I know) said that the Russian economy was such that they can switch industrial production to military uses very quickly and they are not about to run out of any materiel any time soon.
But you, LostPassword, posting on PB, know that their industrial production is "fairly modest" and they "simply can't manufacture enough artillery shells".
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
(a) It's a hell of a lot easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one (b) Russia's population pyramid looked rather different in 1939 than it does in 2023 (c) Russia was only able to fight then because it was supplied by the West
I expected Russia to win the war. Or at least, I expected them to occupy the country East of the Dnieper. And that, I thought, would be the easy bit. Because the initial invasion is usually the easy bit, and it is the occupation - and the slow attrition that comes with it - that kills you.
The nation, both Putin and the population, doesn't seem to be in the mood to call it a day, indeed they believe that the war is an existential fight for their country. That puts the boot on the other foot in your defensive/offensive dynamic because to Russians, they are fighting for their existence.
And I am not sure of the precedent of any country running out of soldiers in war although perhaps Germany in 1945 was an example of this. But Russia is enormous, both its economy and its population and population pyramids aside I can't see them running out of troops in this instance.
My point is there have been umpteen posts forecasting the defeat of Russia (even if anyone knew what they meant by that) for one reason or another and I am wary of such forecasts.
IIRC France ran out of men to conscript at the end of the Napoleonic wars.
Mhairi Black MP🏳️🌈 @MhairiBlack If your faith says you cannot drink alcohol, then don’t. If your religion says you cannot enter same sex marriage, then don’t. If your religion does not allow for abortion, then do not have one.
If your faith says don't commit murder...
Black is basically saying, these things are off-limits for politicians to vote on.
No, she's saying she will not/can not support someone who brings their religious beliefs into politics. That's a valid position. It's also fine to criticise her for it, to claim she is the intolerant one. But the successful candidate will be the one that carries the opinion of the largest number of voters.
It's worth reflecting that, not so long ago, the position would have been reversed - we can well imagine a Twitter thread pamphlet setting out how a right-thinking religious MP could not countenance supporting for the leadership of their party someone who was so far removed from the embrace of God as to publicly support gay marriage.
There was a period when that (right-thinking religious MP) represented public/party opinion, a period during which opinion changed and (perhaps now, we'll have to see how the members vote) a period in which Black's views are now closer to those of the selectorate.
(Edited to correct second para 'pubicly' to 'publicly'. I suspect we're still not ready for politicians to exhibit their pubic support )
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
(a) It's a hell of a lot easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one (b) Russia's population pyramid looked rather different in 1939 than it does in 2023 (c) Russia was only able to fight then because it was supplied by the West
I expected Russia to win the war. Or at least, I expected them to occupy the country East of the Dnieper. And that, I thought, would be the easy bit. Because the initial invasion is usually the easy bit, and it is the occupation - and the slow attrition that comes with it - that kills you.
The nation, both Putin and the population, doesn't seem to be in the mood to call it a day, indeed they believe that the war is an existential fight for their country. That puts the boot on the other foot in your defensive/offensive dynamic because to Russians, they are fighting for their existence.
And I am not sure of the precedent of any country running out of soldiers in war although perhaps Germany in 1945 was an example of this. But Russia is enormous, both its economy and its population and population pyramids aside I can't see them running out of troops in this instance.
My point is there have been umpteen posts forecasting the defeat of Russia (even if anyone knew what they meant by that) for one reason or another and I am wary of such forecasts.
Hitherto, people who are pessimistic about Russia's chances have been proved a good deal more right than those who are optimistic.
I'm not sure what being optimistic about Russia's chances means nor anyone on here who has been.
Realistic is the word I think we should all be looking for and plenty on here, and for entirely understandable reasons, have indulged in wishful thinking more than cold, hard analysis, such as anyone on here is really able to undertake.
Comments
Yousaf is continuity Sturgeon minus the talent and charisma, and the Sturgeon era itself stands for nearly a decade in which progress towards the all-consuming, desperately wanted goal of independence has been essentially nil.
Forbes appears to be regarded as administratively competent but is hamstrung by her religious conservative beliefs, the arguments over which won't simply go away if she wins.
Regan is a junior and obscure figure who resigned to oppose the bulk of her colleagues (and side with the hated Tories) on gender self-ID.
It all has the potential to create a tremendous mess, particularly if the eventual winner with the party membership repeats Corbyn's position of being lauded by the grassroots but resented by the bulk of the parliamentary party.
If they elect Forbes they guarantee years of this. They would be mad to do so
Go for Regan
What a event...
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
I still think (with my also limited understanding) that Regan seems the least-worst
Why the F did Roberston not stand? How bad are the hidden scandals? He’s capable and experienced. He’d be strolling home
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/24/surrey-shufflers-lib-dems-targeting-take-tory-heartlands/
The DeSantis bill sounds utterly bananas to me, too.
https://twitter.com/jdmortenson/status/1628984073128448002
I tend to take claims like these with a grain of salt.
But I just went line-by-line through the DeSantis education bill. And you guys, it’s *bananas*. A road map for wrecking one of our great state systems of higher education.
She is more muscular on indy than Forbes, and well to the left of her. You'd think she'd be favourite in an all-female head-to-head?
SNP MSPs will vote for her reluctantly but she will be in permanent probation as Truss was with Tory MPs
Mhairi Black MP🏳️🌈
@MhairiBlack
If your faith says you cannot drink alcohol, then don’t. If your religion says you cannot enter same sex marriage, then don’t. If your religion does not allow for abortion, then do not have one.
If your faith says don't commit murder...
Black is basically saying, these things are off-limits for politicians to vote on.
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
Given the way that Russia is fighting this war, I don't think that would be anywhere near enough.
If the Nats elect Forbes they can expect much more of this, all the time. Forbes as FM likely guarantees permanent civil/culture war in the party. She can’t row back from what she has said are avowed fundamental religious beliefs
His thesis is that people spend too much time looking for cultural and linguistic differences when explaining why countries do or don't fall apart. In most cases what actually makes the difference is governance and power structures. If a region develops its own political freedom of action, institutions, fiscal model, decision making apparatus and civic identity then it can quite easily drift towards autonomy even if its culture and ethnicity are identical to the rest of the country. He quotes a few examples including the US war of independence, Latin America, some of the Arab monarchies, and a few others I can't remember.
Whereas if a region remains economically and institutionally closely tied to the mothership then regardless of religious, ethnic, linguistic or other differences it will rarely manage to reach escape velocity. Eg Corsica, Wales etc.
Obviously a cocktail of the two gives the biggest bang for buck.
Galeev's view is that Russia could break up through ever-increasing autonomy of regional governors and parliaments choosing to make their own decisions, especially the rich self-funding ones - notably Siberia.
I think we've seen some of this effect here in support for Scottish independence after devolution.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
The first, last, and major, goal being independence.
But wars tend to go on for longer than people want or expect and given the strength of nationalist fervour that is rife in Russia atm I wouldn't be betting on the outcome based upon Russia running out of manpower.
For instance: "How I, and others, are expected to have faith in a leader who unashamedly and publicly believes the love between my wife and I should not be legally recognised, is beyond me" - AFAIK Forbes wasn't saying that in 2014 (and certainly isn't now). There was civil partnership which was legally recognised.
It DOES have nukes and it has a “great power mentality” with added vodka. If the Russian state is threatened with humiliating defeat they will drop an H bomb, I reckon. Probably start with a test detonation first, then go from there
https://twitter.com/themajorityscot/status/1629142155628318720?s=20
Mhairi Black is young and has grown up with social media like Twitter. She knows how to use it really well. QED
I accept that Russia is not as fragmented as, say, the old Yugoslavia. St Pete's may be very different from Moscow but they seem to share a similar nationalistic sentiment. However I don't think it is altogether absurd to imagine new 'political' forms emergimg around the existing mafias, whether geographically based or not.
Nevertheless you are right to suggest my knowledge of the country is slight and if you say I am being stupid, I defer. Stupidity is after all one subject on which you can truly claim to be an expert.
Johnson will be 65 in 2029, the likely date of the second and final GE of the 'new 20s' (unless we decide to have another UK political crisis).
In US terms, that's certainly far too young to be leader, but in the UK we do like our leaders to not also be eligible to draw their state pension (yes, yes, I know, it'll be 67 then or whatever but you get my point).
(Of course, he's younger than SKS so maybe)
You can't just pull out the entire male population and send them to the front line.
At the same time Russia is bleeding front line troops, they also need to divert resources into supplying them.
Why are they doing that?
- I expected the invasion and wasn't surprised by that
- I thought Ukraine would be overrun in days and was surprised by their resilience
- When Russia withdrew from Kiev I expected stalemate but actually Russia went on to capture Severodonetsk
- I was surprised like most by the rapid Ukrainian advances in the NE but not surprised when Kherson fell
- But then unpleasantly surprised at how Russia fought back and started to advance again in the East
Now most people expect stalemate but a few expect a successful Ukrainian offensive in spring. It's really too difficult to tell.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
Insane.
By contrast, how many people read an article in the Scotsman, or the National, how many Scots even watch politics on STV?
This is the enormous potency of social media, and Mhairi Black seems particularly good at deploying it
To address the "cling hold to nurse for fear of getting something worse" argument. It may well be that the immediate successor of Putin would be one of the Kremlin consigliere, like Mishustin, or that the rumours about Dmitri Patrushev being the "clean handed Silovik" are true, but once Shoigu is removed, my guess is that the Stavka will come back at the Siloviki and a much more broad based regime would emerge, probably releasing Navalny as a figure head. The problem is that this process is not controllable or even predictable by any of the factions and once the scorpions start to sting, then you end up with a jar of dead scorpions. The reason Putin survives at all is that there is no one else who could impose order on the Vory, Yet Putin knows that there is also a risk of military coup, which is why he keeps Shoigu and the other generals in place despite their corruption and uselessness. Were Prigrozhin to try something, he would be dead within a New York minute.
Watch what happens to Kadyrov. Putin would not survive his fall.
The regime is in a zombie state, clinging to impossible hopes. If the ZSU achieve a major breakthrough, like Melitopol or Luhansk, then the Putin house of cards falls rapidly.
The online subs seem much healthier - there must be at least a dozen folk on PB alone who take it, and CArlotta for sure must have it online given her apparent location.
Curiously, PB.com is full of people who do know what will happen and are very convinced that they are right.
The amount of resources a large army needs is staggering. Ukraine has some of the largest and richest countries in the world giving not just weapons, but other kit as well - the Nordic countries gave them large amounts of winter clothes in the autumn. And we've been able to do this whilst barely increasing our military output.
Russia has itself, Iran, and North Korea providing lethal aid, along with perhaps China and South Africa giving limited amounts of non-lethal aid.
I also wonder how long it will be before Russia starts running out of trucks for various reasons (and sorry Topping, this is a possibility).
(b) Russia's population pyramid looked rather different in 1939 than it does in 2023
(c) Russia was only able to fight then because it was supplied by the West
I expected Russia to win the war. Or at least, I expected them to occupy the country East of the Dnieper. And that, I thought, would be the easy bit. Because the initial invasion is usually the easy bit, and it is the occupation - and the slow attrition that comes with it - that kills you.
Unfortunately, that seems as true as ever
They can suspend her for breaking SNP rules for her comments on Trans people, I think.
This all seems crazy given she was given such an important position by Sturgeon.
Russia has two big advantages. They have a lot more people than Ukraine, and there's no prospect of Ukraine launching a successful conquest of Russia and imposing a settlement by force. So, they keep going. I hope and believe that Russia is too weak to win outright, but I also think that the Russian leadership has too much invested in this enterprise, and too much in the way of resources, to be beaten outright and ejected from occupied Ukraine. Thus, the logical endpoint is some kind of stalemate. The only question is where the ceasefire line ends up being drawn.
Still, well done SA ladies. Good luck with the sheilas.
But as for people being convinced they're correct: I think it's more complex. I want not just peace, but to avoid this happening again. That's the destination I want to get to. And given Russia's actions over the last two decades, it seems ensuring they get nothing from this evil escapade is the best way of doing this. It has the added advantages of sending a message that nuclear blackmail won't work.
And that's ignoring the morality of the situation.
If you want to make a coherent argument otherwise, feel free.
But if you want to 'minimise human suffering' in the short term, the answer would be just to hand Ukraine over to Russia. I'd argue that would cause more suffering in the medium and long term, both in Ukraine and elsewhere.
What a disaster. Maybe the Scotch experts were right...
In Scotland marriage *is* primarily a legal contract, not a religious sacrament. Always has been. One reason why divorce was easier. PLus in a sense it *increased* religious freedom (admittedly for heterosexuals only) because people didn't have to go to the Church of Scotland to be married.
The religious bit is a 'nice to have'. But by the same token, and the lack of an Established Church of Scotland since the 1920s, it's even further removed from the marriage issue in itself.
Now, I have some worries that I have expressed in the past about the West not increasing the rate of manufacture of ammunition and military equipment, but I think we have much greater potential to increase production than Russia does.
Everything changes if China decides to supply Russia with ammunition and other military equipment. That is essentially the decisive factor in the war, and I've become somewhat alarmed at the western warnings on this point. They sound similar to those made to Russia before the invasion itself a year ago - i.e. futile.
The SNP could end up split three ways between the woke, the centrists and the conservatives.
And I am not sure of the precedent of any country running out of soldiers in war although perhaps Germany in 1945 was an example of this. But Russia is enormous, both its economy and its population and population pyramids aside I can't see them running out of troops in this instance.
My point is there have been umpteen posts forecasting the defeat of Russia (even if anyone knew what they meant by that) for one reason or another and I am wary of such forecasts.
“Had a candidate said they do not believe in racially mixed marriages we would rightly be horrified - so why is my marriage still considered fair game? (7/10)
“ How I, and others, are expected to have faith in a leader who unashamedly and publicly believes the love between my wife and I should not be legally recognised, is beyond me (8/10)
https://twitter.com/mhairiblack/status/1629125533249200130?s=61&t=mfydZrQYcjUzpRbse42jQg
Again, I am not arguing for or against the points, merely paying respect to the coolly angry and punchy way she phrases her argument. These are major blows. Uppercuts. This is gravely damaging to Forbes
Deploying a nuke is the end game for Moscow. Nukes can't stop you being the ultimate pariah state.
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-inside-the-pennsylvania-ammunition-plant-helping-the-war-effort-12815805
And luckily the Australians have this new plant coming on line:
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/general/rheinmetall-nioa-munitions-produces-first-artillery-shell-in-australia
And although these numbers are much lower than demand, we've barely started ramping up. Russia faces even greater problems given the rate they're burning through artillery, and the fact their tactics seem to rely much more on heavy artillery barrages.
China's the big question, but would they lose more than they gain from openly helping Russia?
Civil partnership in Scotland was primarily for gay folk (only) as an alternative for marriage per se. But a lot of heterosexual couples wanted it too - for some reason I don't understand it took some time for that to be ironed out and it has now been.
Human wave tactics, Iranian (fairly low tech) drones - these are adaptions to lost capabilities.
" its industrial production potential is fairly modest. Their rate of artillery fire is markedly down compared to the battle over Severodonetsk, because they simply can't manufacture enough artillery shells to maintain that rate of fire"
Jeez I only listened to one of those (excellent) Ukraine podcasts on the BBC (?) where whichever expert it was (I know) said that the Russian economy was such that they can switch industrial production to military uses very quickly and they are not about to run out of any materiel any time soon.
But you, LostPassword, posting on PB, know that their industrial production is "fairly modest" and they "simply can't manufacture enough artillery shells".
This is what I question.
It's worth reflecting that, not so long ago, the position would have been reversed - we can well imagine a Twitter thread pamphlet setting out how a right-thinking religious MP could not countenance supporting for the leadership of their party someone who was so far removed from the embrace of God as to publicly support gay marriage.
There was a period when that (right-thinking religious MP) represented public/party opinion, a period during which opinion changed and (perhaps now, we'll have to see how the members vote) a period in which Black's views are now closer to those of the selectorate.
(Edited to correct second para 'pubicly' to 'publicly'. I suspect we're still not ready for politicians to exhibit their pubic support
Realistic is the word I think we should all be looking for and plenty on here, and for entirely understandable reasons, have indulged in wishful thinking more than cold, hard analysis, such as anyone on here is really able to undertake.
How's that "to the hilt" definition looking, btw.