Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
They used nuclear rhetoric so early it was clearly just puffery, and talk of needing to give Putin early offramps or not provide weapons to Ukraine was nonsense masquerading as realpolitik, as events have demonstrsted.
But they do have a red line somewhere, and it could be somewhere crazy. Hence the extreme caution on ramping up involvement and no prospect of mass boots on the ground etc, contrary to lame assertions the West has been reckless.
Losing Crimea in the sense that Ukraine militarily defeat the RF forces there would definitely/probably/possibly be the end of Putin. What comes next? Dimon? Who knows other than it definitely wouldn't be Shoigu. The next RF President would immediately have to satiate an enormous sense of greivance and blood lust among the RF population though. So, at the very least, it would be total 100% WW2 style mobilisation and all out war while there was savage internecine conflict at the top of the RF government. If a nuke did pop off in those circumstances it could easily by accident or a freelancing general.
Yes. Losing Crimea would be defeat - for Putin AND Russia. The idea a prickly declining nuclear armed great power with a corrupt elite would just “shrug this off” is delusional. It would convulse the country. 150,000 men dead and a defeat and a humiliation?!
It’s the perfect recipe for an even nastier post-Putin figure to come to power. Hitler came to power after the “humiliation” of Versailles
Yes yes I’m a cowardly appeaser who is absurdly scared of nuclear war blah blah
I don't think we want "keep Putin in power" as a war aim though. What's best is to just keep supporting Ukraine (but short of escalating into a NATO v Russia affair) and see where the chips fall, managing the situation appropriately as it develops. What's absolutely essential is that Joe again beats off Trump/MAGA. Putin's best chance for his abomination to pay off is if god forbid he doesn't.
If Biden and his carers did really want Ukraine to "win" then the move would be to foment a colour revolution or similar insurrection in Kazakhstan. The US doesn't give a relative fuck about that but it's enormously important to the RF. Make Putin choose between Kazakhstan and Ukraine. SMO 2 in Central Asia would also be a welcome distraction to the RF population from an unhappy ending to SMO 1 in Novorossiya.
Elon Musk has been ordered to give a deposition in a lawsuit blaming Tesla's driverless technology for a fatal crash after the carmaker suggested his public statements about autopilot could have been deepfaked.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette D Pennypacker said she found Tesla's argument for why its billionaire chief executive should not testify “deeply troubling to the court”.
The company had argued that it could not vouch for the authenticity of videotaped interviews which show Mr Musk pushing its driver-assistance technology, saying it is possible some of them were digitally altered.
The judge wrote: “Their position is that because Mr Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune.
“In other words, Mr Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do.”
An astonishing £289 million has already been spent on design fees for HS2’s problematic – and now temporarily shelved – Euston station plans.
How much did it cost for Brunel to design Paddington?
Brunel’s first design for Paddington was abandoned because cost overruns elsewhere on the GWR line meant the required budget wasn’t available. In all, it took from 1835 to 1854, so 19 years, for the station to be finished, which is perhaps not what we should be trying to emulate. I’ve not been able to find the answer to your question. I don’t know that a separate design budget was even ever designated.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
I don't know anything about Russia but every single person I've listened to who does tells me that it ain't giving up Crimea. Just not happening. Now of course it's great to want world peace and an end to hunger but at some point reality must surely kick in.
Okay. The Ukrainians disagree, so this will be tested on the [conventional] battlefield.
The Ukrainians might succeed, and they might not. They might accept any failure and come to terms, and they might not.
I don't think we risk nuclear war to let them fight for their land and their people, and I think Ukraine have done a lot better than the pessimists have expected at every stage.
Not knowing anything about Russia means that I am unsure of the implications of Ukraine succeeding "on the battlefield" and reclaiming Crimea militarily. It was put to me recently (at a conference, by a former UK ambassador to Russia) that Russia believes the Crimea is as Russian as we believe Cornwall is part of the UK. And hence it is to them simply non-negotiable. If it is non-negotiable then that means it will need to be settled on the battlefield if Ukraine wants to reclaim it.
Will we as a global community support that aim? Difficult to say - logic says no because either it succeeds and then we need to be aware of Russia's response, or it fails in which case why start in the first place.
They obviously dont believe it to the extent Cornwall because they didnt press the issue post 1991 other than securing their naval facilities. So whilst always seeing it as Russian ethnically it's not like they were acting like a part of the motherland was being occupied. But its obviously of critical importance and now tied pretty tightly to their vision of the country and so surely not something they give up like Kherson.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
I don't know anything about Russia but every single person I've listened to who does tells me that it ain't giving up Crimea. Just not happening. Now of course it's great to want world peace and an end to hunger but at some point reality must surely kick in.
Okay. The Ukrainians disagree, so this will be tested on the [conventional] battlefield.
The Ukrainians might succeed, and they might not. They might accept any failure and come to terms, and they might not.
I don't think we risk nuclear war to let them fight for their land and their people, and I think Ukraine have done a lot better than the pessimists have expected at every stage.
Not knowing anything about Russia means that I am unsure of the implications of Ukraine succeeding "on the battlefield" and reclaiming Crimea militarily. It was put to me recently (at a conference, by a former UK ambassador to Russia) that Russia believes the Crimea is as Russian as we believe Cornwall is part of the UK. And hence it is to them simply non-negotiable. If it is non-negotiable then that means it will need to be settled on the battlefield if Ukraine wants to reclaim it.
Will we as a global community support that aim? Difficult to say - logic says no because either it succeeds and then we need to be aware of Russia's response, or it fails in which case why start in the first place.
That’s my understanding too. Crimea is Russia. It is also Putin’s one outstanding legacy - even more precious after the debacle of this latest war
So if Ukraine takes Crimea Putin would very likely fall with his regime OR to forestall that nightmare (for him) Putin would plunge the whole country into total war to prevent the surrender of crimea
FWIW my guess is that President Biden would tell the Ukes to stop before it got to that point anyway. As he showed in Afghanistan he’s not afraid of quite brutal realpolitik
Fuck knows what president Trump would do
Biden wouldn't stop the Ukrainians taking back Crimea. The administration has been very clear on that point. Crimea is Ukraine.
Repeatedly they did dissuade the Ukrainians from making a spectacular attack on Moscow in February. Moscow is Russia.
The dividing lines are very clear. Ukraine's 1991 borders.
Elon Musk has been ordered to give a deposition in a lawsuit blaming Tesla's driverless technology for a fatal crash after the carmaker suggested his public statements about autopilot could have been deepfaked.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette D Pennypacker said she found Tesla's argument for why its billionaire chief executive should not testify “deeply troubling to the court”.
The company had argued that it could not vouch for the authenticity of videotaped interviews which show Mr Musk pushing its driver-assistance technology, saying it is possible some of them were digitally altered.
The judge wrote: “Their position is that because Mr Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune.
“In other words, Mr Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do.”
An astonishing £289 million has already been spent on design fees for HS2’s problematic – and now temporarily shelved – Euston station plans.
Fake news you are peddling there I think. How do actually spend £289M of tax payers money on design fees you then binned? In contrast the SNP are all over the media over 600k alleged misuse of donations
Wish it was but so far £289m has been spent on Euston for HS2 although that does include some actual preparation work.
I commute to and from Euston. A huge amount of actual building work has been done already. Well, I guess a lot of it is the opposite of building, taking down existing buildings in preparation. The building I used to work in is now a hole in the ground.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
Crimea could be easier than the Donbas, because it's easier to isolate Crimea, making it impossible to supply, and consequently untenable for Russia to hold.
It's also more important for Ukraine's future security than the Donbas.
So, yes.
- Regain Crimea. - Swap Donbass (which is, basically, a shithole) for Kaliningrad Oblast. - Poland and Ukraine unite to become the Intermarium Commonwealth thereby bringing Ukraine into NATO and placing a nascent regional superpower on Russia's doorstep. - Do something about Belarus.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
I don't know anything about Russia but every single person I've listened to who does tells me that it ain't giving up Crimea. Just not happening. Now of course it's great to want world peace and an end to hunger but at some point reality must surely kick in.
Okay. The Ukrainians disagree, so this will be tested on the [conventional] battlefield.
The Ukrainians might succeed, and they might not. They might accept any failure and come to terms, and they might not.
I don't think we risk nuclear war to let them fight for their land and their people, and I think Ukraine have done a lot better than the pessimists have expected at every stage.
Not knowing anything about Russia means that I am unsure of the implications of Ukraine succeeding "on the battlefield" and reclaiming Crimea militarily. It was put to me recently (at a conference, by a former UK ambassador to Russia) that Russia believes the Crimea is as Russian as we believe Cornwall is part of the UK. And hence it is to them simply non-negotiable. If it is non-negotiable then that means it will need to be settled on the battlefield if Ukraine wants to reclaim it.
Will we as a global community support that aim? Difficult to say - logic says no because either it succeeds and then we need to be aware of Russia's response, or it fails in which case why start in the first place.
That’s my understanding too. Crimea is Russia. It is also Putin’s one outstanding legacy - even more precious after the debacle of this latest war
So if Ukraine takes Crimea Putin would very likely fall with his regime OR to forestall that nightmare (for him) Putin would plunge the whole country into total war to prevent the surrender of crimea
FWIW my guess is that President Biden would tell the Ukes to stop before it got to that point anyway. As he showed in Afghanistan he’s not afraid of quite brutal realpolitik
Fuck knows what president Trump would do
At that point the Ukrainians would ignore Biden and his advisors know it. Hence they would not allow him to make the statement in the first place. This is not comment in support of one side or the other as far as the sense of pushing Russia goes. Merely pointing out that Realpolitik works both ways. If Ukraine has got to the point where they are in a position to retake Crimea then I strongly suspect they won't care what Biden says or does.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
I don't know anything about Russia but every single person I've listened to who does tells me that it ain't giving up Crimea. Just not happening. Now of course it's great to want world peace and an end to hunger but at some point reality must surely kick in.
Okay. The Ukrainians disagree, so this will be tested on the [conventional] battlefield.
The Ukrainians might succeed, and they might not. They might accept any failure and come to terms, and they might not.
I don't think we risk nuclear war to let them fight for their land and their people, and I think Ukraine have done a lot better than the pessimists have expected at every stage.
Not knowing anything about Russia means that I am unsure of the implications of Ukraine succeeding "on the battlefield" and reclaiming Crimea militarily. It was put to me recently (at a conference, by a former UK ambassador to Russia) that Russia believes the Crimea is as Russian as we believe Cornwall is part of the UK. And hence it is to them simply non-negotiable. If it is non-negotiable then that means it will need to be settled on the battlefield if Ukraine wants to reclaim it.
Will we as a global community support that aim? Difficult to say - logic says no because either it succeeds and then we need to be aware of Russia's response, or it fails in which case why start in the first place.
That’s my understanding too. Crimea is Russia. It is also Putin’s one outstanding legacy - even more precious after the debacle of this latest war
So if Ukraine takes Crimea Putin would very likely fall with his regime OR to forestall that nightmare (for him) Putin would plunge the whole country into total war to prevent the surrender of crimea
FWIW my guess is that President Biden would tell the Ukes to stop before it got to that point anyway. As he showed in Afghanistan he’s not afraid of quite brutal realpolitik
Fuck knows what president Trump would do
Get Crimea surrounded and isolated, hopefully get the Donbas back, then say 'dont move on it...yet' might be the american suggestion. Humiliation but not total capitulation for Russia.
Of course, Ukraine might not get in position to try!
Trump would want a quick solution, he has bragged he could, so whatever is easiest.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
They used nuclear rhetoric so early it was clearly just puffery, and talk of needing to give Putin early offramps or not provide weapons to Ukraine was nonsense masquerading as realpolitik, as events have demonstrsted.
But they do have a red line somewhere, and it could be somewhere crazy. Hence the extreme caution on ramping up involvement and no prospect of mass boots on the ground etc, contrary to lame assertions the West has been reckless.
Losing Crimea in the sense that Ukraine militarily defeat the RF forces there would definitely/probably/possibly be the end of Putin. What comes next? Dimon? Who knows other than it definitely wouldn't be Shoigu. The next RF President would immediately have to satiate an enormous sense of greivance and blood lust among the RF population though. So, at the very least, it would be total 100% WW2 style mobilisation and all out war while there was savage internecine conflict at the top of the RF government. If a nuke did pop off in those circumstances it could easily by accident or a freelancing general.
Which is an argument for Ukraine using Crimea as a bargaining chip: Russia gets to keep Crimea,which is the only thing it cares about; Ukraine gets its way on everything else. This requires Ukraine to put Crimea into play and keep it there.
The deal for normal countries would be get out t of Ukraine and your boys don't get slaughtered. But Putin doesn't care about them.
Elon Musk has been ordered to give a deposition in a lawsuit blaming Tesla's driverless technology for a fatal crash after the carmaker suggested his public statements about autopilot could have been deepfaked.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette D Pennypacker said she found Tesla's argument for why its billionaire chief executive should not testify “deeply troubling to the court”.
The company had argued that it could not vouch for the authenticity of videotaped interviews which show Mr Musk pushing its driver-assistance technology, saying it is possible some of them were digitally altered.
The judge wrote: “Their position is that because Mr Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune.
“In other words, Mr Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do.”
And so it begins. The end of truth. Welcome to the deepfake era
Everybody will now be able to deny everything, even if it is filmed and recorded. I have no fucking clue how we deal with that
How the court is seeking to deal with it - by getting people to testify in person. If you can't trust electronic communication because it can be faked, then the only other communication you have is communicating directly with people face to face.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
I don't know anything about Russia but every single person I've listened to who does tells me that it ain't giving up Crimea. Just not happening. Now of course it's great to want world peace and an end to hunger but at some point reality must surely kick in.
Okay. The Ukrainians disagree, so this will be tested on the [conventional] battlefield.
The Ukrainians might succeed, and they might not. They might accept any failure and come to terms, and they might not.
I don't think we risk nuclear war to let them fight for their land and their people, and I think Ukraine have done a lot better than the pessimists have expected at every stage.
Not knowing anything about Russia means that I am unsure of the implications of Ukraine succeeding "on the battlefield" and reclaiming Crimea militarily. It was put to me recently (at a conference, by a former UK ambassador to Russia) that Russia believes the Crimea is as Russian as we believe Cornwall is part of the UK. And hence it is to them simply non-negotiable. If it is non-negotiable then that means it will need to be settled on the battlefield if Ukraine wants to reclaim it.
Will we as a global community support that aim? Difficult to say - logic says no because either it succeeds and then we need to be aware of Russia's response, or it fails in which case why start in the first place.
That’s my understanding too. Crimea is Russia. It is also Putin’s one outstanding legacy - even more precious after the debacle of this latest war
So if Ukraine takes Crimea Putin would very likely fall with his regime OR to forestall that nightmare (for him) Putin would plunge the whole country into total war to prevent the surrender of crimea
FWIW my guess is that President Biden would tell the Ukes to stop before it got to that point anyway. As he showed in Afghanistan he’s not afraid of quite brutal realpolitik
Fuck knows what president Trump would do
Biden wouldn't stop the Ukrainians taking back Crimea. The administration has been very clear on that point. Crimea is Ukraine.
Repeatedly they did dissuade the Ukrainians from making a spectacular attack on Moscow in February. Moscow is Russia.
The dividing lines are very clear. Ukraine's 1991 borders.
The US have pretty much indicated they wouldn't support Ukraine going beyond the Feb 22 borders:
“Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, to take back territory that’s been seized from it since Feb. 24, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day,” Mr. Blinken told the WSJ CEO Council Summit late Monday."
This is from December, but it's about the clearest statement I can find from the US on how far their support would go.
The bully health Secretary is now bullying his own nurses. 🤮
Why doesn’t he just flipping talk to them. Their pay has been hollowed out since 2010, having the numbers for a quality service is now relying on how committed nurses are to their profession of helping people, they will work till they drop, despite the fact pay and conditions so hollowed out.
What’s stopping Sunak’s government doing the right thing here?
The government think they are doing the right thing. They’re destroying the NHS. They don’t care about the suffering of all the people waiting for treatment, or the drop in nurses’ pay, and the increasingly unpleasant working conditions. This isn’t a government that cares about this country. The aim of this government is to make their paymasters even richer. And they think destroying the NHS will do that.
Why then have Unison and other health unions accepted this same pay offer
Nurses say they are striking not just for the wages that have unarguably been hollowed out since 2010, but for the quality of service, with so many experienced people leaving, not getting replaced, staff shortages undermining the care they are desperate to give. Other people working in hospitals represented by other unions might be in a different place than that, and liked how their very low pay for their jobs jumped up a bit. In a cost of living crisis any little bit more right now would seem very dry tempting, so you take the short termist decision and not look at the bigger picture longer picture of a settlement. Nurses haven’t strikes for a long time, who among them want to do this all again next year?
Does that answer your question?
That does answer the question. Now for my question. Is it the fact inflation isn’t coming down as forecast why the government have started shitting themselves about the poll boosting wage settlements they were dolling out?
The politics My understanding is, since start of the year the Tory Party have been on a “Save Rishi” approach to next Thursdays locals - fact is not so long ago there was talk of get rid of Rishi after bad locals - so much short termist gifts and over promising, they havn’t planned long term, just see off threat of Boris and Liz.
The economics my understanding is Because food and energy prices can make markets more volatile, underlying inflation with these stripped out proves a more stable indicator - the one PB should be watching, not posting energy prices, as we have probably moved into a new ball game on inflation now. And by all accounts underlying was still high when last announced, whats been buoying that? Top economists at Bank of England said this week (amongst other things the front of Daily Mail had tantrum about) underlying inflation so stubbornly high, overall inflation might not now drop quickly to low point as promised.
So my question, is it wage increases holding underlying inflation high, explaining why the government gone all hard ball on wage settlements again, rather take nurses to court than ACAS?
I am right arn’t I.
Inflation is coming down, it has come down slightly so far and is forecast to fall further and faster as the year goes on.
It is forecast to fall to 2.9% by Q4 2023 on Trading Economics.
Producer Price Inflation has been falling since last year.
Of course these are forecasts but the trend is down and it appears we have peaked.
The govt did not take nurses to court. They took the Union to court. They were right to do so as the action was not lawful.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
Crimea could be easier than the Donbas, because it's easier to isolate Crimea, making it impossible to supply, and consequently untenable for Russia to hold.
It's also more important for Ukraine's future security than the Donbas.
So, yes.
- Regain Crimea. - Swap Donbass (which is, basically, a shithole) for Kaliningrad Oblast. - Poland and Ukraine unite to become the Intermarium Commonwealth thereby bringing Ukraine into NATO and placing a nascent regional superpower on Russia's doorstep. - Do something about Belarus.
The problem all proposals for ending the war face is: how do you get Russia to stick to it?
Obviously having Ukraine in NATO is a big part of that, but it's one reason why I favour supporting Ukraine as much as possible. Fuck all chance of Russia settling for whatever concessions they are offered to stop fighting this time around.
Well aye there is also a section called "OTHER THINGS LIKED BY KEIR STARMER'S FANS"
A Ford Galaxy tops the list of most correlated & also contains knitting, dominoes and cross stitch.
Knight of the people clearly
The generic floating voter in other words. Worcester woman, Mondeo man, "Deano", etc etc. Loads of titles, same concept. You distil England down into the form of a single individual so uncannily representative of what England is that whoever they vote for come polling day wins the general election - then you pitch your rhetoric and policies (your 'offer') at this person. This is what the old chestnut "elections are won from the centre ground" really means in practice.
But Deano's values strike me as the opposite of those of SKS. Obviously Corbyn's values were the opposite of Deano's, only much, much more so. But Deano, I would have thought, is no particular far of SKS's instinctive busybodying, nor of his instinctive cleaving to fashionable causes. What Deano wants is to get richer - which SKS seems to have no plan for - and for public services to work - which SKS seems to have no plan for. The electorate is much more complicated than one stereotype, of course. But if SKS is trying to appeal to that stereotype, well, I don't see what he's doing to do so.
The bully health Secretary is now bullying his own nurses. 🤮
Why doesn’t he just flipping talk to them. Their pay has been hollowed out since 2010, having the numbers for a quality service is now relying on how committed nurses are to their profession of helping people, they will work till they drop, despite the fact pay and conditions so hollowed out.
What’s stopping Sunak’s government doing the right thing here?
The government think they are doing the right thing. They’re destroying the NHS. They don’t care about the suffering of all the people waiting for treatment, or the drop in nurses’ pay, and the increasingly unpleasant working conditions. This isn’t a government that cares about this country. The aim of this government is to make their paymasters even richer. And they think destroying the NHS will do that.
Why then have Unison and other health unions accepted this same pay offer
Nurses say they are striking not just for the wages that have unarguably been hollowed out since 2010, but for the quality of service, with so many experienced people leaving, not getting replaced, staff shortages undermining the care they are desperate to give. Other people working in hospitals represented by other unions might be in a different place than that, and liked how their very low pay for their jobs jumped up a bit. In a cost of living crisis any little bit more right now would seem very dry tempting, so you take the short termist decision and not look at the bigger picture longer picture of a settlement. Nurses haven’t strikes for a long time, who among them want to do this all again next year?
Does that answer your question?
That does answer the question. Now for my question. Is it the fact inflation isn’t coming down as forecast why the government have started shitting themselves about the poll boosting wage settlements they were dolling out?
The politics My understanding is, since start of the year the Tory Party have been on a “Save Rishi” approach to next Thursdays locals - fact is not so long ago there was talk of get rid of Rishi after bad locals - so much short termist gifts and over promising, they havn’t planned long term, just see off threat of Boris and Liz.
The economics my understanding is Because food and energy prices can make markets more volatile, underlying inflation with these stripped out proves a more stable indicator - the one PB should be watching, not posting energy prices, as we have probably moved into a new ball game on inflation now. And by all accounts underlying was still high when last announced, whats been buoying that? Top economists at Bank of England said this week (amongst other things the front of Daily Mail had tantrum about) underlying inflation so stubbornly high, overall inflation might not now drop quickly to low point as promised.
So my question, is it wage increases holding underlying inflation high, explaining why the government gone all hard ball on wage settlements again, rather take nurses to court than ACAS?
I am right arn’t I.
Inflation is coming down, it has come down slightly so far and is forecast to fall further and faster as the year goes on.
It is forecast to fall to 2.9% by Q4 2023 on Trading Economics.
Producer Price Inflation has been falling since last year.
Of course these are forecasts but the trend is down and it appears we have peaked.
The govt did not take nurses to court. They took the Union to court. They were right to do so as the action was not lawful.
So my question, is it now wage increases on underlying inflation making the fall in inflation more sticky than forecasts?
The Court rules in favour of the government in declaring the RCN strike on the 2nd May is unlawful
I don't think this is a good look for the Govt. If they move the strike to (I believe) 1 day earlier it isn't unlawful. It is a pointless victory and just makes them look pedantic. Although why the RCN did this I don't know, because they don't want the cost of re-balloting the members. I assume there is something specific about picking this day.
The Govt should use the courts against a union when the union is abusing its powers and not on a technicality even if they are in the right.
Pat Cullen and her union were in error and should have accepted it before it went to court
She didn't even attend the hearing and the strike would have been illegal, thereby removing all the protections the unions have under strike laws
The RCN now have to seek a new 6 month strike ballot and in view of the closeness of the previous one to reject the pay offer, and with other unions already having accepted it including Unison, the RCN could find the membership rejection of extending the strikes until Christmas
Rishi smashing (I just heard Steve Brine on WATO) the militant RCN in the way Thatcher smashed (my interpretation) the NUM must be a joy to watch for the PB faithful.
Perhaps we should all go out and stand on our doorsteps tonight and clap for the Conservative Government.
The UK is one of the least racist countries in the world, according to a massive new global study, with just 2% of Britons feeling uncomfortable about the idea of living next door to somebody of a different race. Asking whether someone would be happy living next to someone of a different race is one of the traditional ways that researchers measure racism. The data also shows that the British are amongst the most accepting countries in the world. In addition, the nation is among the highest-ranking for tolerance of gay people and immigrants
Polls have shown this for many years. Brits are just about the least racist, most tolerant people on earth. Live and let live. It’s what we do. And it’s one reason foreign people will cross sunny Europe to get to our rainy little island
That’s what makes the stance of the whining remainery guardianista left - ‘racist Brexity Britain’ - so utterly infuriating. It is an outright lie and provably wrong
Always reassuring when someone who thinks Tommy Robinson is a patriot and has advocated all Muslims being interned tells us that Brits aren't racist.
I never claimed that I wasn’t racist. I’d expel the ungrateful ginger Scots tomorrow, and drive them back to their smelly, midgy, peaty little hovels, isolating them all on St Kilda, where they can have anal sex with fulmars, as is their time-honored tradition. I’m just pointing out that the polls contradict Guardianista opinion of Bigoted Brexit Britain
Fulmars have a cloaca not an anus. A single aperture through which they piss, shit and get fucked. Like leavers.
That is droll
The St Kildans did some really weird shit with seabirds. eg they used to use dead seabirds as shoes
You’ve got to be quite desperate for decent footwear if you opt to wear a pair of gannets to go hiking
Better off with a pair of Doc Martins.
I am mildly obsessed with the history and culture of St Kilda
Apparently they were sex mad polyamorous hunter gathering heathens until the dour Presbyterian preachers showed up. That doomed them
I thought they were doomed by the lack of trees dooming them as they couldn’t get wood anymore but I suppose Presbyterian preachers would also cause you to lose your ardour.
I believe a prevalent theory is that the soil of St Kilda was poisoned by centuries of waste being dumped in it causing miscarriages and affecting child mortality & general life expectancy.
Waste of what sort? Are you talking about human effluent? Surely, surely, they had managed to master hygienic disposal of human waste? (And over time I would have thought that would have improved soil anyway?)
Manure and food waste. The remains of seabirds (the main part of their diet) are particularly bad for heavy metals & other toxins apparently.
Interesting. And how odd. Who would have thought seabirds would harbour heavy metals?
Talking about seabirds.
Man caught performing sex act with a seagull in alleyway
David Lee, 40, admitted to causing unnecessary suffering to the animal
That's true, however this guy was from Sunderland: "CCTV footage played in court showed Mr Lee, of Roker Avenue, Sunderland, kneeling down in an alleyway at around 1am, with the animal between his legs. He is seen pulling his pants off and appearing to masturbate with the bird close to his groin area while watching pornography on his phone before kicking the bird away and walking off."
That we have a law against this and are able to enforce it shows just how far we've come - but there is much still to do.
Eh? How far we've come from those dark days when every alley on a Friday night was full of drunkards buggering seagulls?
In all seriousness, what does Dave Lee of Roker Avenue do with his life now? If Nicola Sturgeon is having a dark time of it at the moment, she can at least console herself that her reputation has not sunk as low as that of Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland.
I know! If I were him I'd have been arguing for reporting restrictions. What a blow to his rep. Can he somehow turn it into a plus? It's hard to see how. Usually what you'd do is go onto our equivalent of Oprah - Loose Women - and bare all in a raw confessional, but he'd need an agent for that and he doesn't sound the type of person to have one.
Still, my original point, back in the old days this sort of thing was par for the course and, ok, we shouldn't judge the past by today's standards, but it's good imo that we've become more enlightened. That said, we're still quite primitive in some ways. So let's keep our foot on the gas.
The UK is one of the least racist countries in the world, according to a massive new global study, with just 2% of Britons feeling uncomfortable about the idea of living next door to somebody of a different race. Asking whether someone would be happy living next to someone of a different race is one of the traditional ways that researchers measure racism. The data also shows that the British are amongst the most accepting countries in the world. In addition, the nation is among the highest-ranking for tolerance of gay people and immigrants
Polls have shown this for many years. Brits are just about the least racist, most tolerant people on earth. Live and let live. It’s what we do. And it’s one reason foreign people will cross sunny Europe to get to our rainy little island
That’s what makes the stance of the whining remainery guardianista left - ‘racist Brexity Britain’ - so utterly infuriating. It is an outright lie and provably wrong
Always reassuring when someone who thinks Tommy Robinson is a patriot and has advocated all Muslims being interned tells us that Brits aren't racist.
I never claimed that I wasn’t racist. I’d expel the ungrateful ginger Scots tomorrow, and drive them back to their smelly, midgy, peaty little hovels, isolating them all on St Kilda, where they can have anal sex with fulmars, as is their time-honored tradition. I’m just pointing out that the polls contradict Guardianista opinion of Bigoted Brexit Britain
Fulmars have a cloaca not an anus. A single aperture through which they piss, shit and get fucked. Like leavers.
That is droll
The St Kildans did some really weird shit with seabirds. eg they used to use dead seabirds as shoes
You’ve got to be quite desperate for decent footwear if you opt to wear a pair of gannets to go hiking
Better off with a pair of Doc Martins.
I am mildly obsessed with the history and culture of St Kilda
Apparently they were sex mad polyamorous hunter gathering heathens until the dour Presbyterian preachers showed up. That doomed them
I thought they were doomed by the lack of trees dooming them as they couldn’t get wood anymore but I suppose Presbyterian preachers would also cause you to lose your ardour.
I believe a prevalent theory is that the soil of St Kilda was poisoned by centuries of waste being dumped in it causing miscarriages and affecting child mortality & general life expectancy.
Waste of what sort? Are you talking about human effluent? Surely, surely, they had managed to master hygienic disposal of human waste? (And over time I would have thought that would have improved soil anyway?)
Manure and food waste. The remains of seabirds (the main part of their diet) are particularly bad for heavy metals & other toxins apparently.
Interesting. And how odd. Who would have thought seabirds would harbour heavy metals?
Talking about seabirds.
Man caught performing sex act with a seagull in alleyway
David Lee, 40, admitted to causing unnecessary suffering to the animal
That's true, however this guy was from Sunderland: "CCTV footage played in court showed Mr Lee, of Roker Avenue, Sunderland, kneeling down in an alleyway at around 1am, with the animal between his legs. He is seen pulling his pants off and appearing to masturbate with the bird close to his groin area while watching pornography on his phone before kicking the bird away and walking off."
That we have a law against this and are able to enforce it shows just how far we've come - but there is much still to do.
Eh? How far we've come from those dark days when every alley on a Friday night was full of drunkards buggering seagulls?
In all seriousness, what does Dave Lee of Roker Avenue do with his life now? If Nicola Sturgeon is having a dark time of it at the moment, she can at least console herself that her reputation has not sunk as low as that of Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland.
I know! If I were him I'd have been arguing for reporting restrictions. What a blow to his rep. Can he somehow turn it into a plus? It's hard to see how. Usually what you'd do is go onto our equivalent of Oprah - Loose Women - and bare all in a raw confessional, but he'd need an agent for that and he doesn't sound the type of person to have one.
Still, my original point, back in the old days this sort of thing was par for the course and, ok, we shouldn't judge the past by today's standards, but it's good imo that we've become more enlightened. That said, we're still quite primitive in some ways. So let's keep our foot on the gas.
I honestly can't tell whether you're joking with your last para or not!
The UK is one of the least racist countries in the world, according to a massive new global study, with just 2% of Britons feeling uncomfortable about the idea of living next door to somebody of a different race. Asking whether someone would be happy living next to someone of a different race is one of the traditional ways that researchers measure racism. The data also shows that the British are amongst the most accepting countries in the world. In addition, the nation is among the highest-ranking for tolerance of gay people and immigrants
Polls have shown this for many years. Brits are just about the least racist, most tolerant people on earth. Live and let live. It’s what we do. And it’s one reason foreign people will cross sunny Europe to get to our rainy little island
That’s what makes the stance of the whining remainery guardianista left - ‘racist Brexity Britain’ - so utterly infuriating. It is an outright lie and provably wrong
Always reassuring when someone who thinks Tommy Robinson is a patriot and has advocated all Muslims being interned tells us that Brits aren't racist.
I never claimed that I wasn’t racist. I’d expel the ungrateful ginger Scots tomorrow, and drive them back to their smelly, midgy, peaty little hovels, isolating them all on St Kilda, where they can have anal sex with fulmars, as is their time-honored tradition. I’m just pointing out that the polls contradict Guardianista opinion of Bigoted Brexit Britain
Fulmars have a cloaca not an anus. A single aperture through which they piss, shit and get fucked. Like leavers.
That is droll
The St Kildans did some really weird shit with seabirds. eg they used to use dead seabirds as shoes
You’ve got to be quite desperate for decent footwear if you opt to wear a pair of gannets to go hiking
Better off with a pair of Doc Martins.
I am mildly obsessed with the history and culture of St Kilda
Apparently they were sex mad polyamorous hunter gathering heathens until the dour Presbyterian preachers showed up. That doomed them
I thought they were doomed by the lack of trees dooming them as they couldn’t get wood anymore but I suppose Presbyterian preachers would also cause you to lose your ardour.
I believe a prevalent theory is that the soil of St Kilda was poisoned by centuries of waste being dumped in it causing miscarriages and affecting child mortality & general life expectancy.
Waste of what sort? Are you talking about human effluent? Surely, surely, they had managed to master hygienic disposal of human waste? (And over time I would have thought that would have improved soil anyway?)
Manure and food waste. The remains of seabirds (the main part of their diet) are particularly bad for heavy metals & other toxins apparently.
Interesting. And how odd. Who would have thought seabirds would harbour heavy metals?
Came from the birds’ own diet it seems. All about the food chain!
That is properly fascinating. I thought I knew every last weird detail about St Kilda, and here’s another one. Gratitude
I first heard about it on Timewatch or something similar. Being slowly poisoned by the place that cradles you and which you love has a bit of mythic power to it.
It’s extraordinary. And it feels like a horribly apt metaphor for something bigger
St Kilda deserves an amazing novel or movie. Quite hard to work up a plot tho. Hmm
Far right journalist decides to visit St Kilda to see if it can be the new Madagascar for Muslims.
Tsk
But - weirdly - that’s actually not bad. The way you tell the story is by an attempt to resettle the island. Some hippies maybe. Not Muslim hippies. Plain old woowoo hippies going off grid. Then the ghosts of the poisoned pagan past re-emerge
OOOOH. The eco loons end up killing each other and wearing kittiwakes as slippers
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if M Macron wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
The bully health Secretary is now bullying his own nurses. 🤮
Why doesn’t he just flipping talk to them. Their pay has been hollowed out since 2010, having the numbers for a quality service is now relying on how committed nurses are to their profession of helping people, they will work till they drop, despite the fact pay and conditions so hollowed out.
What’s stopping Sunak’s government doing the right thing here?
The government think they are doing the right thing. They’re destroying the NHS. They don’t care about the suffering of all the people waiting for treatment, or the drop in nurses’ pay, and the increasingly unpleasant working conditions. This isn’t a government that cares about this country. The aim of this government is to make their paymasters even richer. And they think destroying the NHS will do that.
Why then have Unison and other health unions accepted this same pay offer
Nurses say they are striking not just for the wages that have unarguably been hollowed out since 2010, but for the quality of service, with so many experienced people leaving, not getting replaced, staff shortages undermining the care they are desperate to give. Other people working in hospitals represented by other unions might be in a different place than that, and liked how their very low pay for their jobs jumped up a bit. In a cost of living crisis any little bit more right now would seem very dry tempting, so you take the short termist decision and not look at the bigger picture longer picture of a settlement. Nurses haven’t strikes for a long time, who among them want to do this all again next year?
Does that answer your question?
That does answer the question. Now for my question. Is it the fact inflation isn’t coming down as forecast why the government have started shitting themselves about the poll boosting wage settlements they were dolling out?
The politics My understanding is, since start of the year the Tory Party have been on a “Save Rishi” approach to next Thursdays locals - fact is not so long ago there was talk of get rid of Rishi after bad locals - so much short termist gifts and over promising, they havn’t planned long term, just see off threat of Boris and Liz.
The economics my understanding is Because food and energy prices can make markets more volatile, underlying inflation with these stripped out proves a more stable indicator - the one PB should be watching, not posting energy prices, as we have probably moved into a new ball game on inflation now. And by all accounts underlying was still high when last announced, whats been buoying that? Top economists at Bank of England said this week (amongst other things the front of Daily Mail had tantrum about) underlying inflation so stubbornly high, overall inflation might not now drop quickly to low point as promised.
So my question, is it wage increases holding underlying inflation high, explaining why the government gone all hard ball on wage settlements again, rather take nurses to court than ACAS?
I am right arn’t I.
Inflation is coming down, it has come down slightly so far and is forecast to fall further and faster as the year goes on.
It is forecast to fall to 2.9% by Q4 2023 on Trading Economics.
Producer Price Inflation has been falling since last year.
Of course these are forecasts but the trend is down and it appears we have peaked.
The govt did not take nurses to court. They took the Union to court. They were right to do so as the action was not lawful.
Another PB Tory who doesn't seem to realise the cumulative effect of inflation.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
I don't know anything about Russia but every single person I've listened to who does tells me that it ain't giving up Crimea. Just not happening. Now of course it's great to want world peace and an end to hunger but at some point reality must surely kick in.
Okay. The Ukrainians disagree, so this will be tested on the [conventional] battlefield.
The Ukrainians might succeed, and they might not. They might accept any failure and come to terms, and they might not.
I don't think we risk nuclear war to let them fight for their land and their people, and I think Ukraine have done a lot better than the pessimists have expected at every stage.
Not knowing anything about Russia means that I am unsure of the implications of Ukraine succeeding "on the battlefield" and reclaiming Crimea militarily. It was put to me recently (at a conference, by a former UK ambassador to Russia) that Russia believes the Crimea is as Russian as we believe Cornwall is part of the UK. And hence it is to them simply non-negotiable. If it is non-negotiable then that means it will need to be settled on the battlefield if Ukraine wants to reclaim it.
Will we as a global community support that aim? Difficult to say - logic says no because either it succeeds and then we need to be aware of Russia's response, or it fails in which case why start in the first place.
That’s my understanding too. Crimea is Russia. It is also Putin’s one outstanding legacy - even more precious after the debacle of this latest war
So if Ukraine takes Crimea Putin would very likely fall with his regime OR to forestall that nightmare (for him) Putin would plunge the whole country into total war to prevent the surrender of crimea
FWIW my guess is that President Biden would tell the Ukes to stop before it got to that point anyway. As he showed in Afghanistan he’s not afraid of quite brutal realpolitik
Fuck knows what president Trump would do
Biden wouldn't stop the Ukrainians taking back Crimea. The administration has been very clear on that point. Crimea is Ukraine.
Repeatedly they did dissuade the Ukrainians from making a spectacular attack on Moscow in February. Moscow is Russia.
The dividing lines are very clear. Ukraine's 1991 borders.
The US have pretty much indicated they wouldn't support Ukraine going beyond the Feb 22 borders:
“Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, to take back territory that’s been seized from it since Feb. 24, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day,” Mr. Blinken told the WSJ CEO Council Summit late Monday."
This is from December, but it's about the clearest statement I can find from the US on how far their support would go.
Yes. I have no recollection of Biden saying Sure, go ahead, take Crimea
The endgame is what it always has been. Russia will have to accept bitter defeat in all its major war aims. The face saving exercise, to avoid further war or even nukes, will be international recognition of its ownership of Crimea (maybe after another referendum)
Not sure about umarried couples living together. I mean, I've no objection to an unmarried couple next door, but once you get to unmarried couples living together I think of students and I see enough of them in my day job
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
I don't know anything about Russia but every single person I've listened to who does tells me that it ain't giving up Crimea. Just not happening. Now of course it's great to want world peace and an end to hunger but at some point reality must surely kick in.
Okay. The Ukrainians disagree, so this will be tested on the [conventional] battlefield.
The Ukrainians might succeed, and they might not. They might accept any failure and come to terms, and they might not.
I don't think we risk nuclear war to let them fight for their land and their people, and I think Ukraine have done a lot better than the pessimists have expected at every stage.
Not knowing anything about Russia means that I am unsure of the implications of Ukraine succeeding "on the battlefield" and reclaiming Crimea militarily. It was put to me recently (at a conference, by a former UK ambassador to Russia) that Russia believes the Crimea is as Russian as we believe Cornwall is part of the UK. And hence it is to them simply non-negotiable. If it is non-negotiable then that means it will need to be settled on the battlefield if Ukraine wants to reclaim it.
Will we as a global community support that aim? Difficult to say - logic says no because either it succeeds and then we need to be aware of Russia's response, or it fails in which case why start in the first place.
That’s my understanding too. Crimea is Russia. It is also Putin’s one outstanding legacy - even more precious after the debacle of this latest war
So if Ukraine takes Crimea Putin would very likely fall with his regime OR to forestall that nightmare (for him) Putin would plunge the whole country into total war to prevent the surrender of crimea
FWIW my guess is that President Biden would tell the Ukes to stop before it got to that point anyway. As he showed in Afghanistan he’s not afraid of quite brutal realpolitik
Fuck knows what president Trump would do
Biden wouldn't stop the Ukrainians taking back Crimea. The administration has been very clear on that point. Crimea is Ukraine.
Repeatedly they did dissuade the Ukrainians from making a spectacular attack on Moscow in February. Moscow is Russia.
The dividing lines are very clear. Ukraine's 1991 borders.
The US have pretty much indicated they wouldn't support Ukraine going beyond the Feb 22 borders:
“Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, to take back territory that’s been seized from it since Feb. 24, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day,” Mr. Blinken told the WSJ CEO Council Summit late Monday."
This is from December, but it's about the clearest statement I can find from the US on how far their support would go.
A more recent link.
I think studied ambiguity is probably the place the US wants perception of their attitude to the conflict to reside.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Anatole Lieven, an expert in the field for some time, and someone who didn't necessarily call the beginning of the war correctly, has this to say which sounds very sensible. He is one commentator I have been following.
"There is also the concern that Russia would escalate very seriously were Crimea to come under threat. So even if the Ukrainians manage to recover all or most of what they’ve lost since last year, at that point they will come under serious pressure from the West to seek a ceasefire.
The argument in favour of reconquering Crimea often hinges on the belief that losing Crimea would bring down the regime of Vladimir Putin in Russia, or even the disintegration of Russia itself. It’s important to remember that, in warding off that possibility, Russia really might use nuclear weapons, so that itself is very dangerous scenario.
For many people in the Biden administration and in most Western governments, talk of reconquering Crimea is more of a posture, which they privately accept is unlikely in the real world. But some Eastern European governments like those in Poland and the Baltic states, which wield enormous influence in NATO and increasingly in the EU, are much more determined to carry on this war “to the end”. And there are certain Western figures, like Annalena Baerbock, the foreign minister of Germany, who are very hardline on Crimea."
The UK is one of the least racist countries in the world, according to a massive new global study, with just 2% of Britons feeling uncomfortable about the idea of living next door to somebody of a different race. Asking whether someone would be happy living next to someone of a different race is one of the traditional ways that researchers measure racism. The data also shows that the British are amongst the most accepting countries in the world. In addition, the nation is among the highest-ranking for tolerance of gay people and immigrants
Polls have shown this for many years. Brits are just about the least racist, most tolerant people on earth. Live and let live. It’s what we do. And it’s one reason foreign people will cross sunny Europe to get to our rainy little island
That’s what makes the stance of the whining remainery guardianista left - ‘racist Brexity Britain’ - so utterly infuriating. It is an outright lie and provably wrong
Always reassuring when someone who thinks Tommy Robinson is a patriot and has advocated all Muslims being interned tells us that Brits aren't racist.
I never claimed that I wasn’t racist. I’d expel the ungrateful ginger Scots tomorrow, and drive them back to their smelly, midgy, peaty little hovels, isolating them all on St Kilda, where they can have anal sex with fulmars, as is their time-honored tradition. I’m just pointing out that the polls contradict Guardianista opinion of Bigoted Brexit Britain
Fulmars have a cloaca not an anus. A single aperture through which they piss, shit and get fucked. Like leavers.
That is droll
The St Kildans did some really weird shit with seabirds. eg they used to use dead seabirds as shoes
You’ve got to be quite desperate for decent footwear if you opt to wear a pair of gannets to go hiking
Better off with a pair of Doc Martins.
I am mildly obsessed with the history and culture of St Kilda
Apparently they were sex mad polyamorous hunter gathering heathens until the dour Presbyterian preachers showed up. That doomed them
I thought they were doomed by the lack of trees dooming them as they couldn’t get wood anymore but I suppose Presbyterian preachers would also cause you to lose your ardour.
I believe a prevalent theory is that the soil of St Kilda was poisoned by centuries of waste being dumped in it causing miscarriages and affecting child mortality & general life expectancy.
Waste of what sort? Are you talking about human effluent? Surely, surely, they had managed to master hygienic disposal of human waste? (And over time I would have thought that would have improved soil anyway?)
Manure and food waste. The remains of seabirds (the main part of their diet) are particularly bad for heavy metals & other toxins apparently.
Interesting. And how odd. Who would have thought seabirds would harbour heavy metals?
Came from the birds’ own diet it seems. All about the food chain!
That is properly fascinating. I thought I knew every last weird detail about St Kilda, and here’s another one. Gratitude
I first heard about it on Timewatch or something similar. Being slowly poisoned by the place that cradles you and which you love has a bit of mythic power to it.
It’s extraordinary. And it feels like a horribly apt metaphor for something bigger
St Kilda deserves an amazing novel or movie. Quite hard to work up a plot tho. Hmm
Far right journalist decides to visit St Kilda to see if it can be the new Madagascar for Muslims.
Tsk
But - weirdly - that’s actually not bad. The way you tell the story is by an attempt to resettle the island. Some hippies maybe. Not Muslim hippies. Plain old woowoo hippies going off grid. Then the ghosts of the poisoned pagan past re-emerge
OOOOH. The eco loons end up killing each other and wearing kittiwakes as slippers
Isn't that the plot of The Wicker Man?
OH, SO WE CAN DO SPOILERS NOW CAN WE?
(slams door in a huff)
Well evidently it was not. So enjoy the film. And that packet of Swan Vestas on the table in the kitchen has nothing to do with anything.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Elon Musk has been ordered to give a deposition in a lawsuit blaming Tesla's driverless technology for a fatal crash after the carmaker suggested his public statements about autopilot could have been deepfaked.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette D Pennypacker said she found Tesla's argument for why its billionaire chief executive should not testify “deeply troubling to the court”.
The company had argued that it could not vouch for the authenticity of videotaped interviews which show Mr Musk pushing its driver-assistance technology, saying it is possible some of them were digitally altered.
The judge wrote: “Their position is that because Mr Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune.
“In other words, Mr Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do.”
The UK is one of the least racist countries in the world, according to a massive new global study, with just 2% of Britons feeling uncomfortable about the idea of living next door to somebody of a different race. Asking whether someone would be happy living next to someone of a different race is one of the traditional ways that researchers measure racism. The data also shows that the British are amongst the most accepting countries in the world. In addition, the nation is among the highest-ranking for tolerance of gay people and immigrants
Polls have shown this for many years. Brits are just about the least racist, most tolerant people on earth. Live and let live. It’s what we do. And it’s one reason foreign people will cross sunny Europe to get to our rainy little island
That’s what makes the stance of the whining remainery guardianista left - ‘racist Brexity Britain’ - so utterly infuriating. It is an outright lie and provably wrong
Always reassuring when someone who thinks Tommy Robinson is a patriot and has advocated all Muslims being interned tells us that Brits aren't racist.
I never claimed that I wasn’t racist. I’d expel the ungrateful ginger Scots tomorrow, and drive them back to their smelly, midgy, peaty little hovels, isolating them all on St Kilda, where they can have anal sex with fulmars, as is their time-honored tradition. I’m just pointing out that the polls contradict Guardianista opinion of Bigoted Brexit Britain
Fulmars have a cloaca not an anus. A single aperture through which they piss, shit and get fucked. Like leavers.
That is droll
The St Kildans did some really weird shit with seabirds. eg they used to use dead seabirds as shoes
You’ve got to be quite desperate for decent footwear if you opt to wear a pair of gannets to go hiking
Better off with a pair of Doc Martins.
I am mildly obsessed with the history and culture of St Kilda
Apparently they were sex mad polyamorous hunter gathering heathens until the dour Presbyterian preachers showed up. That doomed them
I thought they were doomed by the lack of trees dooming them as they couldn’t get wood anymore but I suppose Presbyterian preachers would also cause you to lose your ardour.
I believe a prevalent theory is that the soil of St Kilda was poisoned by centuries of waste being dumped in it causing miscarriages and affecting child mortality & general life expectancy.
Waste of what sort? Are you talking about human effluent? Surely, surely, they had managed to master hygienic disposal of human waste? (And over time I would have thought that would have improved soil anyway?)
Manure and food waste. The remains of seabirds (the main part of their diet) are particularly bad for heavy metals & other toxins apparently.
Interesting. And how odd. Who would have thought seabirds would harbour heavy metals?
Came from the birds’ own diet it seems. All about the food chain!
That is properly fascinating. I thought I knew every last weird detail about St Kilda, and here’s another one. Gratitude
I first heard about it on Timewatch or something similar. Being slowly poisoned by the place that cradles you and which you love has a bit of mythic power to it.
It’s extraordinary. And it feels like a horribly apt metaphor for something bigger
St Kilda deserves an amazing novel or movie. Quite hard to work up a plot tho. Hmm
Far right journalist decides to visit St Kilda to see if it can be the new Madagascar for Muslims.
Tsk
But - weirdly - that’s actually not bad. The way you tell the story is by an attempt to resettle the island. Some hippies maybe. Not Muslim hippies. Plain old woowoo hippies going off grid. Then the ghosts of the poisoned pagan past re-emerge
OOOOH. The eco loons end up killing each other and wearing kittiwakes as slippers
The UK is one of the least racist countries in the world, according to a massive new global study, with just 2% of Britons feeling uncomfortable about the idea of living next door to somebody of a different race. Asking whether someone would be happy living next to someone of a different race is one of the traditional ways that researchers measure racism. The data also shows that the British are amongst the most accepting countries in the world. In addition, the nation is among the highest-ranking for tolerance of gay people and immigrants
Polls have shown this for many years. Brits are just about the least racist, most tolerant people on earth. Live and let live. It’s what we do. And it’s one reason foreign people will cross sunny Europe to get to our rainy little island
That’s what makes the stance of the whining remainery guardianista left - ‘racist Brexity Britain’ - so utterly infuriating. It is an outright lie and provably wrong
Always reassuring when someone who thinks Tommy Robinson is a patriot and has advocated all Muslims being interned tells us that Brits aren't racist.
I never claimed that I wasn’t racist. I’d expel the ungrateful ginger Scots tomorrow, and drive them back to their smelly, midgy, peaty little hovels, isolating them all on St Kilda, where they can have anal sex with fulmars, as is their time-honored tradition. I’m just pointing out that the polls contradict Guardianista opinion of Bigoted Brexit Britain
Fulmars have a cloaca not an anus. A single aperture through which they piss, shit and get fucked. Like leavers.
That is droll
The St Kildans did some really weird shit with seabirds. eg they used to use dead seabirds as shoes
You’ve got to be quite desperate for decent footwear if you opt to wear a pair of gannets to go hiking
Better off with a pair of Doc Martins.
I am mildly obsessed with the history and culture of St Kilda
Apparently they were sex mad polyamorous hunter gathering heathens until the dour Presbyterian preachers showed up. That doomed them
I thought they were doomed by the lack of trees dooming them as they couldn’t get wood anymore but I suppose Presbyterian preachers would also cause you to lose your ardour.
I believe a prevalent theory is that the soil of St Kilda was poisoned by centuries of waste being dumped in it causing miscarriages and affecting child mortality & general life expectancy.
Waste of what sort? Are you talking about human effluent? Surely, surely, they had managed to master hygienic disposal of human waste? (And over time I would have thought that would have improved soil anyway?)
Manure and food waste. The remains of seabirds (the main part of their diet) are particularly bad for heavy metals & other toxins apparently.
Interesting. And how odd. Who would have thought seabirds would harbour heavy metals?
Talking about seabirds.
Man caught performing sex act with a seagull in alleyway
David Lee, 40, admitted to causing unnecessary suffering to the animal
That's true, however this guy was from Sunderland: "CCTV footage played in court showed Mr Lee, of Roker Avenue, Sunderland, kneeling down in an alleyway at around 1am, with the animal between his legs. He is seen pulling his pants off and appearing to masturbate with the bird close to his groin area while watching pornography on his phone before kicking the bird away and walking off."
That we have a law against this and are able to enforce it shows just how far we've come - but there is much still to do.
Eh? How far we've come from those dark days when every alley on a Friday night was full of drunkards buggering seagulls?
In all seriousness, what does Dave Lee of Roker Avenue do with his life now? If Nicola Sturgeon is having a dark time of it at the moment, she can at least console herself that her reputation has not sunk as low as that of Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland.
I know! If I were him I'd have been arguing for reporting restrictions. What a blow to his rep. Can he somehow turn it into a plus? It's hard to see how. Usually what you'd do is go onto our equivalent of Oprah - Loose Women - and bare all in a raw confessional, but he'd need an agent for that and he doesn't sound the type of person to have one.
Still, my original point, back in the old days this sort of thing was par for the course and, ok, we shouldn't judge the past by today's standards, but it's good imo that we've become more enlightened. That said, we're still quite primitive in some ways. So let's keep our foot on the gas.
I honestly can't tell whether you're joking with your last para or not!
My first para was more the joke. Back to the drawing board.
Anatole Lieven, an expert in the field for some time, and someone who didn't necessarily call the beginning of the war correctly, has this to say which sounds very sensible. He is one commentator I have been following.
"There is also the concern that Russia would escalate very seriously were Crimea to come under threat. So even if the Ukrainians manage to recover all or most of what they’ve lost since last year, at that point they will come under serious pressure from the West to seek a ceasefire.
The argument in favour of reconquering Crimea often hinges on the belief that losing Crimea would bring down the regime of Vladimir Putin in Russia, or even the disintegration of Russia itself. It’s important to remember that, in warding off that possibility, Russia really might use nuclear weapons, so that itself is very dangerous scenario.
For many people in the Biden administration and in most Western governments, talk of reconquering Crimea is more of a posture, which they privately accept is unlikely in the real world. But some Eastern European governments like those in Poland and the Baltic states, which wield enormous influence in NATO and increasingly in the EU, are much more determined to carry on this war “to the end”. And there are certain Western figures, like Annalena Baerbock, the foreign minister of Germany, who are very hardline on Crimea."
Does Ukraine even need to invade Crimea? If they advance as far as the Sea of Azov and then fully take out the Kerch bridge then Russia has no way of supplying Crimea. Would it be likely in that scenario that there would be a civil uprising in Crimea?
The UK is one of the least racist countries in the world, according to a massive new global study, with just 2% of Britons feeling uncomfortable about the idea of living next door to somebody of a different race. Asking whether someone would be happy living next to someone of a different race is one of the traditional ways that researchers measure racism. The data also shows that the British are amongst the most accepting countries in the world. In addition, the nation is among the highest-ranking for tolerance of gay people and immigrants
Polls have shown this for many years. Brits are just about the least racist, most tolerant people on earth. Live and let live. It’s what we do. And it’s one reason foreign people will cross sunny Europe to get to our rainy little island
That’s what makes the stance of the whining remainery guardianista left - ‘racist Brexity Britain’ - so utterly infuriating. It is an outright lie and provably wrong
Always reassuring when someone who thinks Tommy Robinson is a patriot and has advocated all Muslims being interned tells us that Brits aren't racist.
I never claimed that I wasn’t racist. I’d expel the ungrateful ginger Scots tomorrow, and drive them back to their smelly, midgy, peaty little hovels, isolating them all on St Kilda, where they can have anal sex with fulmars, as is their time-honored tradition. I’m just pointing out that the polls contradict Guardianista opinion of Bigoted Brexit Britain
Fulmars have a cloaca not an anus. A single aperture through which they piss, shit and get fucked. Like leavers.
That is droll
The St Kildans did some really weird shit with seabirds. eg they used to use dead seabirds as shoes
You’ve got to be quite desperate for decent footwear if you opt to wear a pair of gannets to go hiking
Better off with a pair of Doc Martins.
I am mildly obsessed with the history and culture of St Kilda
Apparently they were sex mad polyamorous hunter gathering heathens until the dour Presbyterian preachers showed up. That doomed them
I thought they were doomed by the lack of trees dooming them as they couldn’t get wood anymore but I suppose Presbyterian preachers would also cause you to lose your ardour.
I believe a prevalent theory is that the soil of St Kilda was poisoned by centuries of waste being dumped in it causing miscarriages and affecting child mortality & general life expectancy.
Waste of what sort? Are you talking about human effluent? Surely, surely, they had managed to master hygienic disposal of human waste? (And over time I would have thought that would have improved soil anyway?)
Manure and food waste. The remains of seabirds (the main part of their diet) are particularly bad for heavy metals & other toxins apparently.
Interesting. And how odd. Who would have thought seabirds would harbour heavy metals?
Talking about seabirds.
Man caught performing sex act with a seagull in alleyway
David Lee, 40, admitted to causing unnecessary suffering to the animal
That's true, however this guy was from Sunderland: "CCTV footage played in court showed Mr Lee, of Roker Avenue, Sunderland, kneeling down in an alleyway at around 1am, with the animal between his legs. He is seen pulling his pants off and appearing to masturbate with the bird close to his groin area while watching pornography on his phone before kicking the bird away and walking off."
That we have a law against this and are able to enforce it shows just how far we've come - but there is much still to do.
Eh? How far we've come from those dark days when every alley on a Friday night was full of drunkards buggering seagulls?
In all seriousness, what does Dave Lee of Roker Avenue do with his life now? If Nicola Sturgeon is having a dark time of it at the moment, she can at least console herself that her reputation has not sunk as low as that of Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland.
I know! If I were him I'd have been arguing for reporting restrictions. What a blow to his rep. Can he somehow turn it into a plus? It's hard to see how. Usually what you'd do is go onto our equivalent of Oprah - Loose Women - and bare all in a raw confessional, but he'd need an agent for that and he doesn't sound the type of person to have one.
Still, my original point, back in the old days this sort of thing was par for the course and, ok, we shouldn't judge the past by today's standards, but it's good imo that we've become more enlightened. That said, we're still quite primitive in some ways. So let's keep our foot on the gas.
I honestly can't tell whether you're joking with your last para or not!
My first para was more the joke. Back to the drawing board.
Well your first para genuinely was funny. No quibbles there.
If your last para isn't a joke - well, it's not clear to me that using seabirds as sex aids was ever really commonplace, even in St. Kilda. I'm not sure we can use this as any sort of lesson. It's just something that happens right at the end of the bell curve.
Though there was the guy in Northumberland a couple of decades ago who got charged with indecent assualt of a dolphin, I suppose.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Alsace Lorraine led to WW1
Because Germany stole it, just as Russia has stolen Crimea.
Well aye there is also a section called "OTHER THINGS LIKED BY KEIR STARMER'S FANS"
A Ford Galaxy tops the list of most correlated & also contains knitting, dominoes and cross stitch.
Knight of the people clearly
The generic floating voter in other words. Worcester woman, Mondeo man, "Deano", etc etc. Loads of titles, same concept. You distil England down into the form of a single individual so uncannily representative of what England is that whoever they vote for come polling day wins the general election - then you pitch your rhetoric and policies (your 'offer') at this person. This is what the old chestnut "elections are won from the centre ground" really means in practice.
But Deano's values strike me as the opposite of those of SKS. Obviously Corbyn's values were the opposite of Deano's, only much, much more so. But Deano, I would have thought, is no particular far of SKS's instinctive busybodying, nor of his instinctive cleaving to fashionable causes. What Deano wants is to get richer - which SKS seems to have no plan for - and for public services to work - which SKS seems to have no plan for. The electorate is much more complicated than one stereotype, of course. But if SKS is trying to appeal to that stereotype, well, I don't see what he's doing to do so.
We must be following different Starmers. The one I'm seeing is busting a gut to appeal to Deano. Eg "cleaving to fashionable causes?" - hardly. He's dropping 'fashionable' (where by this you mean 'trendy left') causes as fast as a person possibly can without losing his balance and falling over.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
They used nuclear rhetoric so early it was clearly just puffery, and talk of needing to give Putin early offramps or not provide weapons to Ukraine was nonsense masquerading as realpolitik, as events have demonstrsted.
But they do have a red line somewhere, and it could be somewhere crazy. Hence the extreme caution on ramping up involvement and no prospect of mass boots on the ground etc, contrary to lame assertions the West has been reckless.
Losing Crimea in the sense that Ukraine militarily defeat the RF forces there would definitely/probably/possibly be the end of Putin. What comes next? Dimon? Who knows other than it definitely wouldn't be Shoigu. The next RF President would immediately have to satiate an enormous sense of greivance and blood lust among the RF population though. So, at the very least, it would be total 100% WW2 style mobilisation and all out war while there was savage internecine conflict at the top of the RF government. If a nuke did pop off in those circumstances it could easily by accident or a freelancing general.
Yes comrade, that's possible. There are also other, less dramatic and more pro-Ukrainian, possibilities.
There are, but whilst I think sarky comments and similar are unfair, and people clearly have overestimated the point at which Russia's rulers might go even more barmy, particularly re Crimea it's a scenario still quite possible to bear in mind.
A long squeeze on Crimea seemed to be the plan before, and if the bridge were hit further and land bridge separated theres a lot of leverage.
Indeed. It's perfectly feasible that Ukraine might be able to make Crimea incredibly difficult to hold, without even taking it. Cut off the land bridge, have the ferries under long-range artillery bombardment, and make Sebastopol unusable as a marine base due to threats against shipping. With the water supply cut off as well, Crimea would become a massive millstone around Russia's neck.
Yes, bad things might happen in Russia if Crimea, or Putin, falls. But then again, better things might happen, whatever stronkiness asshats on DA's Telegram channels say. We cannot be responsible for what Russia does; we can only stand up for the values that say that what Russia is doing, and has been doing for years, is wrong.
What happens politically in Russia is up to Russia. We have very little influence on that: and people who pretend otherwise are being silly.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Alsace Lorraine led to WW1
No it didn't, Bosnia did.
Some bloke shot an ostrich called Archie Duke and that led to WWI.
Well aye there is also a section called "OTHER THINGS LIKED BY KEIR STARMER'S FANS"
A Ford Galaxy tops the list of most correlated & also contains knitting, dominoes and cross stitch.
Knight of the people clearly
The generic floating voter in other words. Worcester woman, Mondeo man, "Deano", etc etc. Loads of titles, same concept. You distil England down into the form of a single individual so uncannily representative of what England is that whoever they vote for come polling day wins the general election - then you pitch your rhetoric and policies (your 'offer') at this person. This is what the old chestnut "elections are won from the centre ground" really means in practice.
But Deano's values strike me as the opposite of those of SKS. Obviously Corbyn's values were the opposite of Deano's, only much, much more so. But Deano, I would have thought, is no particular far of SKS's instinctive busybodying, nor of his instinctive cleaving to fashionable causes. What Deano wants is to get richer - which SKS seems to have no plan for - and for public services to work - which SKS seems to have no plan for. The electorate is much more complicated than one stereotype, of course. But if SKS is trying to appeal to that stereotype, well, I don't see what he's doing to do so.
We must be following different Starmers. The one I'm seeing is busting a gut to appeal to Deano. Eg "cleaving to fashionable causes?" - hardly. He's dropping 'fashionable' (where by this you mean 'trendy left') causes as fast as a person possibly can without losing his balance and falling over.
Is he? 99% of women don't have a penis? Kneeling for BLM? He's had so many opportunities to disavow that philosophical wing of the left and he never appears to take it.
EDIT: Should add that to his credit while he may not be dropping the causes he is doing admirable work in offloading the crazier individuals when the opportunity presents itself.
Elon Musk has been ordered to give a deposition in a lawsuit blaming Tesla's driverless technology for a fatal crash after the carmaker suggested his public statements about autopilot could have been deepfaked.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette D Pennypacker said she found Tesla's argument for why its billionaire chief executive should not testify “deeply troubling to the court”.
The company had argued that it could not vouch for the authenticity of videotaped interviews which show Mr Musk pushing its driver-assistance technology, saying it is possible some of them were digitally altered.
The judge wrote: “Their position is that because Mr Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune.
“In other words, Mr Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do.”
Elon Musk has been ordered to give a deposition in a lawsuit blaming Tesla's driverless technology for a fatal crash after the carmaker suggested his public statements about autopilot could have been deepfaked.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette D Pennypacker said she found Tesla's argument for why its billionaire chief executive should not testify “deeply troubling to the court”.
The company had argued that it could not vouch for the authenticity of videotaped interviews which show Mr Musk pushing its driver-assistance technology, saying it is possible some of them were digitally altered.
The judge wrote: “Their position is that because Mr Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune.
“In other words, Mr Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do.”
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
Getting the Russians out of Crimea, is a bigger version of getting the Russians out of Kherson - you cut off their limited supply lines, surround them with ‘friendly’ troops and ships, and then gradually starve them out.
China isn’t silly enough to get involved directly and face western sanctions. They’re more worried about keeping the Americans interested in Ukraine rather than Taiwan.
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
Getting the Russians out of Crimea, is a bigger version of getting the Russians out of Kherson - you cut off their limited supply lines, surround them with ‘friendly’ troops and ships, and then gradually starve them out.
China isn’t silly enough to get involved directly and face western sanctions. They’re more worried about keeping the Americans interested in Ukraine rather than Taiwan.
Lol. How are we going to sanction China? It is responsible for more of world trade than any other nation. It has more trading power than the USA, and it is a more important trading partner for most of the world than the EU or the USA
Biden has already choked off the export of high tech chips to China, that’s about as far as he can go without crippling the west’s economy more than he hurts China
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
China is pivotal, but you make a couple of statements there that I don't think follow. Going by your logic China would already be supplying Russia with massive quantities of war material - they aren't. So, why?
One, because the West has leverage on China to persuade them not to do so. Two, because while China would quite like to see the West lose, they don't give two shits about Russia and have no intention of incurring any cost to help them out.
China's interests in, for example, Taiwan, are much more important - this is one reason why they've slapped down Russia's nuclear rhetoric, and they've made the use of NATO weapons on targets in Russia a red line for them.
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
I think we might increasingly see China playing both sides. They want Russia to be manageably weak and if they could gain some influence in Ukraine it would be to their advantage.
Luke Cowan-Dickie was tossed into the “drunk tank” in Montpellier after being detained by police in the early hours of Wednesday morning. The England hooker was in France to undergo a medical with the Top 14 club, who have concerns over a neck injury that has left him in doubt for the World Cup.
Well aye there is also a section called "OTHER THINGS LIKED BY KEIR STARMER'S FANS"
A Ford Galaxy tops the list of most correlated & also contains knitting, dominoes and cross stitch.
Knight of the people clearly
The generic floating voter in other words. Worcester woman, Mondeo man, "Deano", etc etc. Loads of titles, same concept. You distil England down into the form of a single individual so uncannily representative of what England is that whoever they vote for come polling day wins the general election - then you pitch your rhetoric and policies (your 'offer') at this person. This is what the old chestnut "elections are won from the centre ground" really means in practice.
But Deano's values strike me as the opposite of those of SKS. Obviously Corbyn's values were the opposite of Deano's, only much, much more so. But Deano, I would have thought, is no particular far of SKS's instinctive busybodying, nor of his instinctive cleaving to fashionable causes. What Deano wants is to get richer - which SKS seems to have no plan for - and for public services to work - which SKS seems to have no plan for. The electorate is much more complicated than one stereotype, of course. But if SKS is trying to appeal to that stereotype, well, I don't see what he's doing to do so.
We must be following different Starmers. The one I'm seeing is busting a gut to appeal to Deano. Eg "cleaving to fashionable causes?" - hardly. He's dropping 'fashionable' (where by this you mean 'trendy left') causes as fast as a person possibly can without losing his balance and falling over.
Is he? 99% of women don't have a penis? Kneeling for BLM? He's had so many opportunities to disavow that philosophical wing of the left and he never appears to take it.
EDIT: Should add that to his credit while he may not be dropping the causes he is doing admirable work in offloading the crazier individuals when the opportunity presents itself.
Again I simply don't recognize reality there. He's dropped the longstanding commitment to Trans people for gender recognition reform. Sold them out, some say.
And that single taking-the-knee photo with Ange at the height of the BLM movement (when it was mainstream to do so to show opposition to racism) is hardly a sign he's in the clutches of the radical identitarian left!
But anyway, what does this matter - you're not in a million years voting Labour, are you. You are not Deano. You're a creature of the right as much as I am of the left. Deano is neither. He's an apolitical floater.
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
"The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing"
Strategically, Russia has already lost. In my sitting-on-sofa and totally non-expert way, I'm now willing to call it. There's no way Russia comes out of this a stronger and stronkier country than it was before Putin started his madness. If their winter offensive had made progress; then there was a smidgen of a way for them to gain a limited strategic success. But not now; even if the Ukrainian offensive fails.
Russia is poorer financially; its military has been hollowed out. It has lost lots of friends and trading partners; and the trading partners it has got are definitely the senior partners in the trade. It's demographic problem has got *much* worse.
Losing Crimea would be a tiny strategic loss on top of the massive strategic loss it has already suffered, and one that is deepening every day.
And a reminder; we did not do this to Russia. Russia did it to itself.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Alsace Lorraine led to WW1
No it didn't, Bosnia did.
I’m with Leon in this. First World War was follow up to Germany beating napoleon France in 1870 war, took France a while to sign UK and Russia up on their side, it made Germany conscious of losing the arms race so they dusted off a plan to go for it before the odds went against them.
A different outcome may have hinged on how quickly Germany could take Paris and French surrender in first month, and a war we think of as trenches for years was fluid in that first month, Germany not far from Paris.
I’m sure I read somewhere the smoking gun fact proving Leon’s and my argument, the Serb assassin had been trained and armed by France. But I can’t find it.
Crimea War was definitely result of naughty France stirring it.
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
China is pivotal, but you make a couple of statements there that I don't think follow. Going by your logic China would already be supplying Russia with massive quantities of war material - they aren't. So, why?
One, because the West has leverage on China to persuade them not to do so. Two, because while China would quite like to see the West lose, they don't give two shits about Russia and have no intention of incurring any cost to help them out.
China's interests in, for example, Taiwan, are much more important - this is one reason why they've slapped down Russia's nuclear rhetoric, and they've made the use of NATO weapons on targets in Russia a red line for them.
Militarily, this war has been problematic for China as well. Many of their weapons are fully or loosely based on Russian designs and theories, and those have been shown to perform poorly. Worse, the 'West' was on a long military draw-down, reducing stocks of everything. Putin's madness has reversed that, and that makes any play for Taiwan more problematic.
Personally, I think China will make a play for a northern resource area, rather than Taiwan. The west won't intervene, aside from tut-tutting, and it'd be easy for China to play the 'oppressed brothers' card.
I’m sure I read somewhere the smoking gun fact proving Leon’s and my argument, the Serb assassin had been trained and armed by France. But I can’t find it.
Crimea War was definitely result of naughty France stirring it.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Alsace Lorraine led to WW1
No it didn't, Bosnia did.
Some bloke shot an ostrich called Archie Duke and that led to WWI.
I thought someone shot Rio Ferdinand and that's what led to WW1
The UK is one of the least racist countries in the world, according to a massive new global study, with just 2% of Britons feeling uncomfortable about the idea of living next door to somebody of a different race. Asking whether someone would be happy living next to someone of a different race is one of the traditional ways that researchers measure racism. The data also shows that the British are amongst the most accepting countries in the world. In addition, the nation is among the highest-ranking for tolerance of gay people and immigrants
Polls have shown this for many years. Brits are just about the least racist, most tolerant people on earth. Live and let live. It’s what we do. And it’s one reason foreign people will cross sunny Europe to get to our rainy little island
That’s what makes the stance of the whining remainery guardianista left - ‘racist Brexity Britain’ - so utterly infuriating. It is an outright lie and provably wrong
Always reassuring when someone who thinks Tommy Robinson is a patriot and has advocated all Muslims being interned tells us that Brits aren't racist.
I never claimed that I wasn’t racist. I’d expel the ungrateful ginger Scots tomorrow, and drive them back to their smelly, midgy, peaty little hovels, isolating them all on St Kilda, where they can have anal sex with fulmars, as is their time-honored tradition. I’m just pointing out that the polls contradict Guardianista opinion of Bigoted Brexit Britain
Fulmars have a cloaca not an anus. A single aperture through which they piss, shit and get fucked. Like leavers.
That is droll
The St Kildans did some really weird shit with seabirds. eg they used to use dead seabirds as shoes
You’ve got to be quite desperate for decent footwear if you opt to wear a pair of gannets to go hiking
Better off with a pair of Doc Martins.
I am mildly obsessed with the history and culture of St Kilda
Apparently they were sex mad polyamorous hunter gathering heathens until the dour Presbyterian preachers showed up. That doomed them
I thought they were doomed by the lack of trees dooming them as they couldn’t get wood anymore but I suppose Presbyterian preachers would also cause you to lose your ardour.
I believe a prevalent theory is that the soil of St Kilda was poisoned by centuries of waste being dumped in it causing miscarriages and affecting child mortality & general life expectancy.
Waste of what sort? Are you talking about human effluent? Surely, surely, they had managed to master hygienic disposal of human waste? (And over time I would have thought that would have improved soil anyway?)
Manure and food waste. The remains of seabirds (the main part of their diet) are particularly bad for heavy metals & other toxins apparently.
Interesting. And how odd. Who would have thought seabirds would harbour heavy metals?
Talking about seabirds.
Man caught performing sex act with a seagull in alleyway
David Lee, 40, admitted to causing unnecessary suffering to the animal
That's true, however this guy was from Sunderland: "CCTV footage played in court showed Mr Lee, of Roker Avenue, Sunderland, kneeling down in an alleyway at around 1am, with the animal between his legs. He is seen pulling his pants off and appearing to masturbate with the bird close to his groin area while watching pornography on his phone before kicking the bird away and walking off."
That we have a law against this and are able to enforce it shows just how far we've come - but there is much still to do.
Eh? How far we've come from those dark days when every alley on a Friday night was full of drunkards buggering seagulls?
In all seriousness, what does Dave Lee of Roker Avenue do with his life now? If Nicola Sturgeon is having a dark time of it at the moment, she can at least console herself that her reputation has not sunk as low as that of Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland.
This is a vile slander against Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland. It might have been vaginal
Your stalker might remember the days when PB had a biology teacher. Seagulls are birds FFS they don't have vaginas!! They have a combined, all-in-one arrangement called a [damn; forgotten the word and I'm not googling it] so it's probably not buggery either, or it's both. Tbh the whole sex with seagulls thing sounds biologically implausible.
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
China is pivotal, but you make a couple of statements there that I don't think follow. Going by your logic China would already be supplying Russia with massive quantities of war material - they aren't. So, why?
One, because the West has leverage on China to persuade them not to do so. Two, because while China would quite like to see the West lose, they don't give two shits about Russia and have no intention of incurring any cost to help them out.
China's interests in, for example, Taiwan, are much more important - this is one reason why they've slapped down Russia's nuclear rhetoric, and they've made the use of NATO weapons on targets in Russia a red line for them.
China loses face if Putin is defeated. The Chinese are, to put it mildly, unkeen on losing face
The ideal outcome for China is a weakened but ultimately undefeated Russia evermore reliant on China, but a Russia still potent enough to distract the West, as China bids for Taiwan. So a stalemate around about where we are now would suit China excellently
That’s another reason I reckon an armistice this will arrive this year, with the front lines not dissimilar to what we see today, probably after both sides have tried and failed to significantly alter the facts on the ground
And if Ukraine launches a brilliant spring offensive and sweeps Russia out of Crimea and Donbas then fair play to them and Slava Ukraine!
The UK is one of the least racist countries in the world, according to a massive new global study, with just 2% of Britons feeling uncomfortable about the idea of living next door to somebody of a different race. Asking whether someone would be happy living next to someone of a different race is one of the traditional ways that researchers measure racism. The data also shows that the British are amongst the most accepting countries in the world. In addition, the nation is among the highest-ranking for tolerance of gay people and immigrants
Polls have shown this for many years. Brits are just about the least racist, most tolerant people on earth. Live and let live. It’s what we do. And it’s one reason foreign people will cross sunny Europe to get to our rainy little island
That’s what makes the stance of the whining remainery guardianista left - ‘racist Brexity Britain’ - so utterly infuriating. It is an outright lie and provably wrong
Always reassuring when someone who thinks Tommy Robinson is a patriot and has advocated all Muslims being interned tells us that Brits aren't racist.
I never claimed that I wasn’t racist. I’d expel the ungrateful ginger Scots tomorrow, and drive them back to their smelly, midgy, peaty little hovels, isolating them all on St Kilda, where they can have anal sex with fulmars, as is their time-honored tradition. I’m just pointing out that the polls contradict Guardianista opinion of Bigoted Brexit Britain
Fulmars have a cloaca not an anus. A single aperture through which they piss, shit and get fucked. Like leavers.
That is droll
The St Kildans did some really weird shit with seabirds. eg they used to use dead seabirds as shoes
You’ve got to be quite desperate for decent footwear if you opt to wear a pair of gannets to go hiking
Better off with a pair of Doc Martins.
I am mildly obsessed with the history and culture of St Kilda
Apparently they were sex mad polyamorous hunter gathering heathens until the dour Presbyterian preachers showed up. That doomed them
I thought they were doomed by the lack of trees dooming them as they couldn’t get wood anymore but I suppose Presbyterian preachers would also cause you to lose your ardour.
I believe a prevalent theory is that the soil of St Kilda was poisoned by centuries of waste being dumped in it causing miscarriages and affecting child mortality & general life expectancy.
Waste of what sort? Are you talking about human effluent? Surely, surely, they had managed to master hygienic disposal of human waste? (And over time I would have thought that would have improved soil anyway?)
Manure and food waste. The remains of seabirds (the main part of their diet) are particularly bad for heavy metals & other toxins apparently.
Interesting. And how odd. Who would have thought seabirds would harbour heavy metals?
Talking about seabirds.
Man caught performing sex act with a seagull in alleyway
David Lee, 40, admitted to causing unnecessary suffering to the animal
That's true, however this guy was from Sunderland: "CCTV footage played in court showed Mr Lee, of Roker Avenue, Sunderland, kneeling down in an alleyway at around 1am, with the animal between his legs. He is seen pulling his pants off and appearing to masturbate with the bird close to his groin area while watching pornography on his phone before kicking the bird away and walking off."
That we have a law against this and are able to enforce it shows just how far we've come - but there is much still to do.
Eh? How far we've come from those dark days when every alley on a Friday night was full of drunkards buggering seagulls?
In all seriousness, what does Dave Lee of Roker Avenue do with his life now? If Nicola Sturgeon is having a dark time of it at the moment, she can at least console herself that her reputation has not sunk as low as that of Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland.
This is a vile slander against Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland. It might have been vaginal
Your stalker might remember the days when PB had a biology teacher. Seagulls are birds FFS they don't have vaginas!! They have a combined, all-in-one arrangement called a [damn; forgotten the word and I'm not googling it] so it's probably not buggery either, or it's both. Tbh the whole sex with seagulls thing sounds biologically implausible.
A cloaca? It's not the first time that particular orifice has been raised today. And yes, I agree, it sounds unlikely. Perhaps what went on was some sort of frottage.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Alsace Lorraine led to WW1
Because Germany stole it, just as Russia has stolen Crimea.
“Because Germany stole it, just as Russia has stolen Crimea.”
I think you could be spot on with that comparison. Two different countries, classrooms of school children in both countries being shown different maps. Because of historical ties to the same thing.
Russia is resource rich and cash/population poor. China may well be looking at northeast Russia and not crying too many tears if Russia looks, and is, very weak.
I got covid about a month ago (just as the Easter holidays began). I was +ve for a week, but it was followed by a wracking cough, and now that's mostly gone, I'm finding it relatively hard to get running even 10K again.
It's bu**ered my lungs worse than a seagull who's had acquaintance with Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland.
I've gone from running marathons to barely being able to run 10K.
The UK is one of the least racist countries in the world, according to a massive new global study, with just 2% of Britons feeling uncomfortable about the idea of living next door to somebody of a different race. Asking whether someone would be happy living next to someone of a different race is one of the traditional ways that researchers measure racism. The data also shows that the British are amongst the most accepting countries in the world. In addition, the nation is among the highest-ranking for tolerance of gay people and immigrants
Polls have shown this for many years. Brits are just about the least racist, most tolerant people on earth. Live and let live. It’s what we do. And it’s one reason foreign people will cross sunny Europe to get to our rainy little island
That’s what makes the stance of the whining remainery guardianista left - ‘racist Brexity Britain’ - so utterly infuriating. It is an outright lie and provably wrong
Always reassuring when someone who thinks Tommy Robinson is a patriot and has advocated all Muslims being interned tells us that Brits aren't racist.
I never claimed that I wasn’t racist. I’d expel the ungrateful ginger Scots tomorrow, and drive them back to their smelly, midgy, peaty little hovels, isolating them all on St Kilda, where they can have anal sex with fulmars, as is their time-honored tradition. I’m just pointing out that the polls contradict Guardianista opinion of Bigoted Brexit Britain
Fulmars have a cloaca not an anus. A single aperture through which they piss, shit and get fucked. Like leavers.
That is droll
The St Kildans did some really weird shit with seabirds. eg they used to use dead seabirds as shoes
You’ve got to be quite desperate for decent footwear if you opt to wear a pair of gannets to go hiking
Better off with a pair of Doc Martins.
I am mildly obsessed with the history and culture of St Kilda
Apparently they were sex mad polyamorous hunter gathering heathens until the dour Presbyterian preachers showed up. That doomed them
I thought they were doomed by the lack of trees dooming them as they couldn’t get wood anymore but I suppose Presbyterian preachers would also cause you to lose your ardour.
I believe a prevalent theory is that the soil of St Kilda was poisoned by centuries of waste being dumped in it causing miscarriages and affecting child mortality & general life expectancy.
Waste of what sort? Are you talking about human effluent? Surely, surely, they had managed to master hygienic disposal of human waste? (And over time I would have thought that would have improved soil anyway?)
Manure and food waste. The remains of seabirds (the main part of their diet) are particularly bad for heavy metals & other toxins apparently.
Interesting. And how odd. Who would have thought seabirds would harbour heavy metals?
Talking about seabirds.
Man caught performing sex act with a seagull in alleyway
David Lee, 40, admitted to causing unnecessary suffering to the animal
That's true, however this guy was from Sunderland: "CCTV footage played in court showed Mr Lee, of Roker Avenue, Sunderland, kneeling down in an alleyway at around 1am, with the animal between his legs. He is seen pulling his pants off and appearing to masturbate with the bird close to his groin area while watching pornography on his phone before kicking the bird away and walking off."
That we have a law against this and are able to enforce it shows just how far we've come - but there is much still to do.
Eh? How far we've come from those dark days when every alley on a Friday night was full of drunkards buggering seagulls?
In all seriousness, what does Dave Lee of Roker Avenue do with his life now? If Nicola Sturgeon is having a dark time of it at the moment, she can at least console herself that her reputation has not sunk as low as that of Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland.
This is a vile slander against Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland. It might have been vaginal
Your stalker might remember the days when PB had a biology teacher. Seagulls are birds FFS they don't have vaginas!! They have a combined, all-in-one arrangement called a [damn; forgotten the word and I'm not googling it] so it's probably not buggery either, or it's both. Tbh the whole sex with seagulls thing sounds biologically implausible.
The name of the all-in-one orifice is kept under a cloaca secrecy which is why you can’t name it.
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
China is pivotal, but you make a couple of statements there that I don't think follow. Going by your logic China would already be supplying Russia with massive quantities of war material - they aren't. So, why?
One, because the West has leverage on China to persuade them not to do so. Two, because while China would quite like to see the West lose, they don't give two shits about Russia and have no intention of incurring any cost to help them out.
China's interests in, for example, Taiwan, are much more important - this is one reason why they've slapped down Russia's nuclear rhetoric, and they've made the use of NATO weapons on targets in Russia a red line for them.
China loses face if Putin is defeated. The Chinese are, to put it mildly, unkeen on losing face
The ideal outcome for China is a weakened but ultimately undefeated Russia evermore reliant on China, but a Russia still potent enough to distract the West, as China bids for Taiwan. So a stalemate around about where we are now would suit China excellently
That’s another reason I reckon an armistice this will arrive this year, with the front lines not dissimilar to what we see today, probably after both sides have tried and failed to significantly alter the facts on the ground
And if Ukraine launches a brilliant spring offensive and sweeps Russia out of Crimea and Donbas then fair play to them and Slava Ukraine!
I reckon that in many respects China wins either way.
If Russia gets to hold onto territory that it has gained by force of arms then the West is weakened.
If Russia is pushed out of Ukraine then the principle of territorial integrity is strengthened. This is key for China over Taiwan, because most countries recognise Taiwan as part of China and not as an independent country.
If they intervene decisively on Russia's side - and Russia still loses - then they incur massive costs from the West and lose a massive amount of face, and for what? What difference would it make to them if Russia were to take Kramatorsk, or lose Svatove?
So I think that China can stand aside.
Where China gets provoked is if the West becomes overconfident and tries to invite the independence of Chechnya, or allow its weapons to be used to hit targets in Russia proper.
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
China is pivotal, but you make a couple of statements there that I don't think follow. Going by your logic China would already be supplying Russia with massive quantities of war material - they aren't. So, why?
One, because the West has leverage on China to persuade them not to do so. Two, because while China would quite like to see the West lose, they don't give two shits about Russia and have no intention of incurring any cost to help them out.
China's interests in, for example, Taiwan, are much more important - this is one reason why they've slapped down Russia's nuclear rhetoric, and they've made the use of NATO weapons on targets in Russia a red line for them.
Militarily, this war has been problematic for China as well. Many of their weapons are fully or loosely based on Russian designs and theories, and those have been shown to perform poorly. Worse, the 'West' was on a long military draw-down, reducing stocks of everything. Putin's madness has reversed that, and that makes any play for Taiwan more problematic.
Personally, I think China will make a play for a northern resource area, rather than Taiwan. The west won't intervene, aside from tut-tutting, and it'd be easy for China to play the 'oppressed brothers' card.
The resemblance to the Korean War, which halted headlong US disarmament, is of note.
Russia is resource rich and cash/population poor. China may well be looking at northeast Russia and not crying too many tears if Russia looks, and is, very weak.
The idea China is going to invade and conquer chunks of Siberia is delusional
Russia as an economic vassal state of China, equally united against the West, is the optimum for them
Because at some point China really IS going to take on Taiwan, and having a supportive Russia at its back will be advantageous
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
I don't know anything about Russia but every single person I've listened to who does tells me that it ain't giving up Crimea. Just not happening. Now of course it's great to want world peace and an end to hunger but at some point reality must surely kick in.
Okay. The Ukrainians disagree, so this will be tested on the [conventional] battlefield.
The Ukrainians might succeed, and they might not. They might accept any failure and come to terms, and they might not.
I don't think we risk nuclear war to let them fight for their land and their people, and I think Ukraine have done a lot better than the pessimists have expected at every stage.
Not knowing anything about Russia means that I am unsure of the implications of Ukraine succeeding "on the battlefield" and reclaiming Crimea militarily. It was put to me recently (at a conference, by a former UK ambassador to Russia) that Russia believes the Crimea is as Russian as we believe Cornwall is part of the UK. And hence it is to them simply non-negotiable. If it is non-negotiable then that means it will need to be settled on the battlefield if Ukraine wants to reclaim it.
Will we as a global community support that aim? Difficult to say - logic says no because either it succeeds and then we need to be aware of Russia's response, or it fails in which case why start in the first place.
That’s my understanding too. Crimea is Russia. It is also Putin’s one outstanding legacy - even more precious after the debacle of this latest war
So if Ukraine takes Crimea Putin would very likely fall with his regime OR to forestall that nightmare (for him) Putin would plunge the whole country into total war to prevent the surrender of crimea
FWIW my guess is that President Biden would tell the Ukes to stop before it got to that point anyway. As he showed in Afghanistan he’s not afraid of quite brutal realpolitik
Fuck knows what president Trump would do
Biden wouldn't stop the Ukrainians taking back Crimea. The administration has been very clear on that point. Crimea is Ukraine.
Repeatedly they did dissuade the Ukrainians from making a spectacular attack on Moscow in February. Moscow is Russia.
The dividing lines are very clear. Ukraine's 1991 borders.
The US have pretty much indicated they wouldn't support Ukraine going beyond the Feb 22 borders:
“Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, to take back territory that’s been seized from it since Feb. 24, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day,” Mr. Blinken told the WSJ CEO Council Summit late Monday."
This is from December, but it's about the clearest statement I can find from the US on how far their support would go.
Yes. I have no recollection of Biden saying Sure, go ahead, take Crimea
The endgame is what it always has been. Russia will have to accept bitter defeat in all its major war aims. The face saving exercise, to avoid further war or even nukes, will be international recognition of its ownership of Crimea (maybe after another referendum)
The face-saving exercise would be to let Russia buy Crimea. The USA bought some of its own states so is familiar with the concept. Russia has hundreds of billions of dollars it cannot spend while sanctions remain. Ukraine needs the money to rebuild everything Russia's blown up, and possibly to repay America if it turns out those donated guns were not gifts (as for us in ww2).
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Alsace Lorraine led to WW1
No it didn't, Bosnia did.
I’m with Leon in this. First World War was follow up to Germany beating napoleon France in 1870 war, took France a while to sign UK and Russia up on their side, it made Germany conscious of losing the arms race so they dusted off a plan to go for it before the odds went against them.
A different outcome may have hinged on how quickly Germany could take Paris and French surrender in first month, and a war we think of as trenches for years was fluid in that first month, Germany not far from Paris.
I’m sure I read somewhere the smoking gun fact proving Leon’s and my argument, the Serb assassin had been trained and armed by France. But I can’t find it.
Crimea War was definitely result of naughty France stirring it.
You're both still wrong. The ultimate cause of WW1 were Austrian and German ambitions to expand their empires in Eastern Europe. Alsace Lorraine was - at most - a very minor part of that.
It was what persuaded France and Russia they had shared strategic aims, which was a different matter but that was a response to the causes, not one of them.
Personally, I think China will make a play for a northern resource area, rather than Taiwan. The west won't intervene, aside from tut-tutting, and it'd be easy for China to play the 'oppressed brothers' card.
I wouldn't be surprised if Zelensky mentioned that idea when he spoke to Xi Jinping.
Russia is resource rich and cash/population poor. China may well be looking at northeast Russia and not crying too many tears if Russia looks, and is, very weak.
I've poured scorn on the idea of Russia using nuclear weapons to defend territory it has invaded, but if they weren't prepared to use them to defend their internationally recognised borders then there's not much point in having them.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Alsace Lorraine led to WW1
No it didn't, Bosnia did.
I’m with Leon in this. First World War was follow up to Germany beating napoleon France in 1870 war, took France a while to sign UK and Russia up on their side, it made Germany conscious of losing the arms race so they dusted off a plan to go for it before the odds went against them.
A different outcome may have hinged on how quickly Germany could take Paris and French surrender in first month, and a war we think of as trenches for years was fluid in that first month, Germany not far from Paris.
I’m sure I read somewhere the smoking gun fact proving Leon’s and my argument, the Serb assassin had been trained and armed by France. But I can’t find it.
Crimea War was definitely result of naughty France stirring it.
You're both still wrong. The ultimate cause of WW1 were Austrian and German ambitions to expand their empires in Eastern Europe. Alsace Lorraine was - at most - a very minor part of that.
It was what persuaded France and Russia they had shared strategic aims, which was a different matter but that was a response to the causes, not one of them.
I rather thought it was down to some idiots in Autro-Hungary trying to maintain the Empire by grabbing the opportunity to crush Serbia.
The French were intent on following the rules of Revanche Club.
1) “N’en parlez jamais; pensez y toujours.” 2) Germany must be allowed to start the next war, since France needs allies. 3) Don't start the war, but be ready. The Germans will start the next war, don't worry about that.
Personally, I think China will make a play for a northern resource area, rather than Taiwan. The west won't intervene, aside from tut-tutting, and it'd be easy for China to play the 'oppressed brothers' card.
I wouldn't be surprised if Zelensky mentioned that idea when he spoke to Xi Jinping.
It is worth reading Colin Thurbon 'The Amur River' on this.
He makes the point that, not only does China regarding much of the land in Siberia that was rightfully theirs but that Russia massacres large numbers of Chinese there which hasn't been forgotten.
It's also interesting that China has been building up its infrastructure to the border including links but Russia has done all it can to minimise the cross-boarding transportation capabilities.
If it wasn't for the nukes, and that China knows the USSR once proposed to the US that they should both nuke China, I wouldn't be surprised if Xi made a grab.
Russia is resource rich and cash/population poor. China may well be looking at northeast Russia and not crying too many tears if Russia looks, and is, very weak.
I've poured scorn on the idea of Russia using nuclear weapons to defend territory it has invaded, but if they weren't prepared to use them to defend their internationally recognised borders then there's not much point in having them.
For China, it might be an easier bet than Taiwan, especially in the long-term. Take lessons out of Putin's book and interfere in those areas politically (as some say they are already doing).
But yes, nukes are an issue. But Moscow are well aware that China is also nuclear-capable.
I hope China does neither Russia or Taiwan. Neither is good for the world.
But I reckon what's happened in the last 15 months makes a Taiwanese adventure from China less likely, as it's made the possibility and consequences of failure much more real.
O/T, last two polls for the Democrat nomination have had RFK up to 19-21%.
He obviously won't win but that's a large progress from the 10-14% of a few weeks ago. While he's anti-vax, he is also anti-corporate establishment (see the argument breaking out at the moment over an American Prospect article saying Tucker Carlson had some good ideas).
I think Joe needs some of his diehard supporters on here who claim he's the most underrated President to get his numbers up...
Personally, I think China will make a play for a northern resource area, rather than Taiwan. The west won't intervene, aside from tut-tutting, and it'd be easy for China to play the 'oppressed brothers' card.
I wouldn't be surprised if Zelensky mentioned that idea when he spoke to Xi Jinping.
It is worth reading Colin Thurbon 'The Amur River' on this.
He makes the point that, not only does China regarding much of the land in Siberia that was rightfully theirs but that Russia massacres large numbers of Chinese there which hasn't been forgotten.
It's also interesting that China has been building up its infrastructure to the border including links but Russia has done all it can to minimise the cross-boarding transportation capabilities.
If it wasn't for the nukes, and that China knows the USSR once proposed to the US that they should both nuke China, I wouldn't be surprised if Xi made a grab.
And yet China has settled its border disputes with Russia, unlike with its other neighbours.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Alsace Lorraine led to WW1
No it didn't, Bosnia did.
I’m with Leon in this. First World War was follow up to Germany beating napoleon France in 1870 war, took France a while to sign UK and Russia up on their side, it made Germany conscious of losing the arms race so they dusted off a plan to go for it before the odds went against them.
A different outcome may have hinged on how quickly Germany could take Paris and French surrender in first month, and a war we think of as trenches for years was fluid in that first month, Germany not far from Paris.
I’m sure I read somewhere the smoking gun fact proving Leon’s and my argument, the Serb assassin had been trained and armed by France. But I can’t find it.
Crimea War was definitely result of naughty France stirring it.
You're both still wrong. The ultimate cause of WW1 were Austrian and German ambitions to expand their empires in Eastern Europe. Alsace Lorraine was - at most - a very minor part of that.
It was what persuaded France and Russia they had shared strategic aims, which was a different matter but that was a response to the causes, not one of them.
I wasn’t claiming “Alsace Loraine” was the cause of WW1, I was pointing out it that it an unfortunate example to choose as a comparison to Crimea, given what eventually happened after that relative skirmish in 1871
Russia is resource rich and cash/population poor. China may well be looking at northeast Russia and not crying too many tears if Russia looks, and is, very weak.
I've poured scorn on the idea of Russia using nuclear weapons to defend territory it has invaded, but if they weren't prepared to use them to defend their internationally recognised borders then there's not much point in having them.
For China, it might be an easier bet than Taiwan, especially in the long-term. Take lessons out of Putin's book and interfere in those areas politically (as some say they are already doing).
But yes, nukes are an issue. But Moscow are well aware that China is also nuclear-capable.
I hope China does neither Russia or Taiwan. Neither is good for the world.
But I reckon what's happened in the last 15 months makes a Taiwanese adventure from China less likely, as it's made the possibility and consequences of failure much more real.
China is absolutely dedicated to reclaiming Taiwan and I suspect that many taiwanese, deep down, are resigned to its happening eventually
Mr. Password, would China have to invade? It could simply propose one-sided agreements to get what they want without formally taking territory. Russia needs them more than the Chinese needs the Russians.
Ukraine running out of weapons and fears losing more territory - BBC
Ukraine getting upper hand on front line - Al Jazeera
OK think ones about Bakhmut and others about Kherson but looks like a long long War to me
The ammunition situation for Ukraine is getting critical and probably delaying their Spring offensive. The alarm bells were ringing a while ago and there has been some response, especially from the US, but the burn rate in modern warfare is beyond the west’s current capacity.
It’s going to end like Korea. In a muddy, stagnant armistice
Russia will hold on to crimea. Dunno about the Donbas
Both sides are exhausted and running out of energy, money and men
The status quo will then drag on for decades
Probably. If Ukraine can return to 2014 state of play I think western support then dries up, despite strong talk, as going beyond would probably be so much harder given how entrenched it is and it will be seen as time for a 'pause'
Hope to be proven wrong.
I think Ukraine have several major advantages in equipment and intelligence. The Russians have also caused massive damage to their forces with their last offensive which has achieved very little.
The main areas of uncertainty I have are on ammunition supply and the quality of the training for the new Ukrainian units.
There's a pretty good chance that the Ukrainians surprise everyone on the upside - again - and make major gains with their impending counteroffensive, which will hopefully encourage countries to provide further support to Ukraine so that they can finish the job.
But what is “finishing the job” against a nuclear armed power governed by a tyrant? Marching on Moscow?
Putin will not give up Crimea. I suspect that is the red line where he would seriously threaten tactical nukes or do a demo explosion over the Black Sea
That show The Diplomat was good on this. When your enemy has nukes there is a limit to what you can do. Simple as
Indeed. The PB Toy Soldiers are fans of tough talk like "finishing the job" and "doing everything it takes" – of course, when you ask them to clearly define what they mean it turns out they mean nothing much at all.
Ukraine's 1991 borders. Very clearly defined.
Including Crimea? Do you think that's realistic?
The equivalence drawn I am seeing is France giving up Bordeaux to China, if he wants Ukraine to consider giving up Crimea.
Crimea is absolutely realistic and will stay part of Ukraine. You can't reward invasions based on ethnic revanchism. Putin has lost his chance of keeping it by his bloody and genocidal war. It is Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainians now.
Alsace Lorraine led to WW1
No it didn't, Bosnia did.
I’m with Leon in this. First World War was follow up to Germany beating napoleon France in 1870 war, took France a while to sign UK and Russia up on their side, it made Germany conscious of losing the arms race so they dusted off a plan to go for it before the odds went against them.
A different outcome may have hinged on how quickly Germany could take Paris and French surrender in first month, and a war we think of as trenches for years was fluid in that first month, Germany not far from Paris.
I’m sure I read somewhere the smoking gun fact proving Leon’s and my argument, the Serb assassin had been trained and armed by France. But I can’t find it.
Crimea War was definitely result of naughty France stirring it.
You're both still wrong. The ultimate cause of WW1 were Austrian and German ambitions to expand their empires in Eastern Europe. Alsace Lorraine was - at most - a very minor part of that.
It was what persuaded France and Russia they had shared strategic aims, which was a different matter but that was a response to the causes, not one of them.
I rather thought it was down to some idiots in Autro-Hungary trying to maintain the Empire by grabbing the opportunity to crush Serbia.
The French were intent on following the rules of Revanche Club.
1) “N’en parlez jamais; pensez y toujours.” 2) Germany must be allowed to start the next war, since France needs allies. 3) Don't start the war, but be ready. The Germans will start the next war, don't worry about that.
I blame the French involvement in the Thirty Years War, which was when they first stole Alsace.
O/T, last two polls for the Democrat nomination have had RFK up to 19-21%.
He obviously won't win but that's a large progress from the 10-14% of a few weeks ago. While he's anti-vax, he is also anti-corporate establishment (see the argument breaking out at the moment over an American Prospect article saying Tucker Carlson had some good ideas).
I think Joe needs some of his diehard supporters on here who claim he's the most underrated President to get his numbers up...
A notably dim post as such supporters on PB are (typically) British and therefore can't get Joe's numbers up no matter how much we rate him. Duh!
Elon Musk has been ordered to give a deposition in a lawsuit blaming Tesla's driverless technology for a fatal crash after the carmaker suggested his public statements about autopilot could have been deepfaked.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette D Pennypacker said she found Tesla's argument for why its billionaire chief executive should not testify “deeply troubling to the court”.
The company had argued that it could not vouch for the authenticity of videotaped interviews which show Mr Musk pushing its driver-assistance technology, saying it is possible some of them were digitally altered.
The judge wrote: “Their position is that because Mr Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune.
“In other words, Mr Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do.”
And so it begins. The end of truth. Welcome to the deepfake era
Everybody will now be able to deny everything, even if it is filmed and recorded. I have no fucking clue how we deal with that
Last year, as I recall, PB was full of odes of love for that great genius and cutting-edge entrepreneur extraordinaire, Elon Musk.
Not so much these days, eh?
Read interesting story recently, about the mega-Musk rocket that blasted off, then blasted itself.
Seems that the Musk-eteers submitted enviro impact "statements" that were a wee bit inadequate. And "planning" that did NOT provide for reasonable provision for the mega-thrust.
With result that Port Isabel, Texas was/is covered by a HUGE amount of dust, rocks, boulders that came raining down post-launch:
NYT ($) - SpaceX’s Starship Kicked Up a Dust Cloud, Leaving Texans With a Mess Residents of Port Isabel said that their city was covered in grime following SpaceX’s rocket launch on Thursday. The city said there was no “immediate concern for people’s health.”
Russia is resource rich and cash/population poor. China may well be looking at northeast Russia and not crying too many tears if Russia looks, and is, very weak.
I've poured scorn on the idea of Russia using nuclear weapons to defend territory it has invaded, but if they weren't prepared to use them to defend their internationally recognised borders then there's not much point in having them.
For China, it might be an easier bet than Taiwan, especially in the long-term. Take lessons out of Putin's book and interfere in those areas politically (as some say they are already doing).
But yes, nukes are an issue. But Moscow are well aware that China is also nuclear-capable.
I hope China does neither Russia or Taiwan. Neither is good for the world.
But I reckon what's happened in the last 15 months makes a Taiwanese adventure from China less likely, as it's made the possibility and consequences of failure much more real.
China is absolutely dedicated to reclaiming Taiwan and I suspect that many taiwanese, deep down, are resigned to its happening eventually
I'm not sure that either side would ever want a Chinese on Chinese war.
@emmadentcoad With huge regret. I have decided to resign from the Labour Party.
I'm not leaving the party. The party has left me.
Why did I hear colossal cheers from Labour HQ?
It's an odd one because Emma Dent-Coad seems to have resigned over her local party's (or group's) refusal to criticise Starmer for accepting "hospitality". Would Labour HQ want that publicised? Anyway, EDC's statement can be read at:-
When a million people protested against the Iraq War, no one was suspended or expelled from the Labour Party. Our MP at the time was Karen Buck, and I know she had a difficult conversation with Blair, but he didn’t force her out. https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/04/27/not-welcome-here/
Blimey, Microsoft are not happy about their deal being scuppered are they? Bit premature to declare the EU a better place to do business when the EU regulator has not ruled yet though.
Sony in particular are spending a lot of effort lobbying in the US. Activision are one of the top PlayStation developers, and the Japanese company is somewhat concerned about a vertical monopoly being created, whereby dozens of titles and a lot of IP ends up being exclusive to one platform.
Yes. The CMA is concerned about Microsoft owning two thirds of the cloud gaming market already, but at the moment cloud gaming is tiny compared with games consoles and PC gaming. The hope and fear is that cloud gaming will grow to dominate gaming, and Microsoft will have a de facto monopoly.
That's very much what they have in mind when talking about stifling innovation.
I think the CMA decision essentially correct - big tech is very fond of establishing effective monopolies on market segments, and doing so when that segment is at early stages of development is the best way to do it.
Of course if the US and EU disagree with us, it's a bit awkward.
"Microsoft boss expresses disappointment about the UK still not being a soft touch for unscrupulous monopolists flogging crap products"
Re Ukraine, China might well become pivotal as we approach the endgame
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
China is pivotal, but you make a couple of statements there that I don't think follow. Going by your logic China would already be supplying Russia with massive quantities of war material - they aren't. So, why?
One, because the West has leverage on China to persuade them not to do so. Two, because while China would quite like to see the West lose, they don't give two shits about Russia and have no intention of incurring any cost to help them out.
China's interests in, for example, Taiwan, are much more important - this is one reason why they've slapped down Russia's nuclear rhetoric, and they've made the use of NATO weapons on targets in Russia a red line for them.
China loses face if Putin is defeated. The Chinese are, to put it mildly, unkeen on losing face
The ideal outcome for China is a weakened but ultimately undefeated Russia evermore reliant on China, but a Russia still potent enough to distract the West, as China bids for Taiwan. So a stalemate around about where we are now would suit China excellently
That’s another reason I reckon an armistice this will arrive this year, with the front lines not dissimilar to what we see today, probably after both sides have tried and failed to significantly alter the facts on the ground
And if Ukraine launches a brilliant spring offensive and sweeps Russia out of Crimea and Donbas then fair play to them and Slava Ukraine!
China has been quite careful, I think, not to tie itself to Putin.
Russia is resource rich and cash/population poor. China may well be looking at northeast Russia and not crying too many tears if Russia looks, and is, very weak.
I've poured scorn on the idea of Russia using nuclear weapons to defend territory it has invaded, but if they weren't prepared to use them to defend their internationally recognised borders then there's not much point in having them.
For China, it might be an easier bet than Taiwan, especially in the long-term. Take lessons out of Putin's book and interfere in those areas politically (as some say they are already doing).
But yes, nukes are an issue. But Moscow are well aware that China is also nuclear-capable.
I hope China does neither Russia or Taiwan. Neither is good for the world.
But I reckon what's happened in the last 15 months makes a Taiwanese adventure from China less likely, as it's made the possibility and consequences of failure much more real.
China is absolutely dedicated to reclaiming Taiwan and I suspect that many taiwanese, deep down, are resigned to its happening eventually
A few years ago, a friend, who was writing code for defence firm, was asked to do some investigative work for a Taiwanese sale.
The Taiwanese wanted a mode for a point defence AA gun system, where it would track falling paratroops, and rather than blasting away, as it would at missiles, fire 1-2 rounds per paratrooper, and then move to the next target.
As part of this, he met some Taiwanese military and civilian government people. He was struck by how unified and focused they were on a requirement to brutally slaughter a part of a Chinese invasion force.
Russia is resource rich and cash/population poor. China may well be looking at northeast Russia and not crying too many tears if Russia looks, and is, very weak.
I've poured scorn on the idea of Russia using nuclear weapons to defend territory it has invaded, but if they weren't prepared to use them to defend their internationally recognised borders then there's not much point in having them.
For China, it might be an easier bet than Taiwan, especially in the long-term. Take lessons out of Putin's book and interfere in those areas politically (as some say they are already doing).
But yes, nukes are an issue. But Moscow are well aware that China is also nuclear-capable.
I hope China does neither Russia or Taiwan. Neither is good for the world.
But I reckon what's happened in the last 15 months makes a Taiwanese adventure from China less likely, as it's made the possibility and consequences of failure much more real.
China is absolutely dedicated to reclaiming Taiwan and I suspect that many taiwanese, deep down, are resigned to its happening eventually
While Zelensky was slurping Xi's fragrant balls on the phone he said he was on board with the "One China" policy so he's resigned to it.
Comments
Elon Musk has been ordered to give a deposition in a lawsuit blaming Tesla's driverless technology for a fatal crash after the carmaker suggested his public statements about autopilot could have been deepfaked.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette D Pennypacker said she found Tesla's argument for why its billionaire chief executive should not testify “deeply troubling to the court”.
The company had argued that it could not vouch for the authenticity of videotaped interviews which show Mr Musk pushing its driver-assistance technology, saying it is possible some of them were digitally altered.
The judge wrote: “Their position is that because Mr Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune.
“In other words, Mr Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/27/elon-musk-ordered-stop-deepfake-excuse-tesla-trial/
Repeatedly they did dissuade the Ukrainians from making a spectacular attack on Moscow in February. Moscow is Russia.
The dividing lines are very clear. Ukraine's 1991 borders.
Everybody will now be able to deny everything, even if it is filmed and recorded. I have no fucking clue how we deal with that
That’s not the name of a beer by the way, at least not yet, it’s an actual person given government contracts.
- Swap Donbass (which is, basically, a shithole) for Kaliningrad Oblast.
- Poland and Ukraine unite to become the Intermarium Commonwealth thereby bringing Ukraine into NATO and placing a nascent regional superpower on Russia's doorstep.
- Do something about Belarus.
A perfect alternative
Cab Ride on the Drax Express
AVAILABLE (1) BIDS (11)
CURRENT BID
£510
Cab ride for one with GB Railfreight on the Drax Express.
Heading from Liverpool to the Drax Power Station - but don't worry you won't have to do the whole journey!
Starmer fans please explain.
Of course, Ukraine might not get in position to try!
Trump would want a quick solution, he has bragged he could, so whatever is easiest.
The deal for normal countries would be get out t of Ukraine and your boys don't get slaughtered. But Putin doesn't care about them.
Dont tell Mrs BJO
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-goal-in-ukraine-drive-russians-back-to-pre-invasion-lines-blinken-says-11670351786
“Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, to take back territory that’s been seized from it since Feb. 24, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day,” Mr. Blinken told the WSJ CEO Council Summit late Monday."
This is from December, but it's about the clearest statement I can find from the US on how far their support would go.
It is forecast to fall to 2.9% by Q4 2023 on Trading Economics.
Producer Price Inflation has been falling since last year.
Of course these are forecasts but the trend is down and it appears we have peaked.
The govt did not take nurses to court. They took the Union to court. They were right to do so as the action was not lawful.
Obviously having Ukraine in NATO is a big part of that, but it's one reason why I favour supporting Ukraine as much as possible. Fuck all chance of Russia settling for whatever concessions they are offered to stop fighting this time around.
Obviously Corbyn's values were the opposite of Deano's, only much, much more so. But Deano, I would have thought, is no particular far of SKS's instinctive busybodying, nor of his instinctive cleaving to fashionable causes. What Deano wants is to get richer - which SKS seems to have no plan for - and for public services to work - which SKS seems to have no plan for.
The electorate is much more complicated than one stereotype, of course. But if SKS is trying to appeal to that stereotype, well, I don't see what he's doing to do so.
Perhaps we should all go out and stand on our doorsteps tonight and clap for the Conservative Government.
Still, my original point, back in the old days this sort of thing was par for the course and, ok, we shouldn't judge the past by today's standards, but it's good imo that we've become more enlightened. That said, we're still quite primitive in some ways. So let's keep our foot on the gas.
(slams door in a huff)
Oleksiy Danilov, Mr Zelensky’s national security adviser, called on the French president to halt his attempts to draw up peace deal terms with the help of China.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/25/russia-ukraine-war-emmanuel-macron-peace-plan-negotiations/
On the side, James Cleverley's quite nuanced speech wrt China was interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPzJYT-SYX8
The endgame is what it always has been. Russia will have to accept bitter defeat in all its major war aims. The face saving exercise, to avoid further war or even nukes, will be international recognition of its ownership of Crimea (maybe after another referendum)
I think studied ambiguity is probably the place the US wants perception of their attitude to the conflict to reside.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3884764-why-biden-is-ambiguous-on-ukraines-crimea-question/
"There is also the concern that Russia would escalate very seriously were Crimea to come under threat. So even if the Ukrainians manage to recover all or most of what they’ve lost since last year, at that point they will come under serious pressure from the West to seek a ceasefire.
The argument in favour of reconquering Crimea often hinges on the belief that losing Crimea would bring down the regime of Vladimir Putin in Russia, or even the disintegration of Russia itself. It’s important to remember that, in warding off that possibility, Russia really might use nuclear weapons, so that itself is very dangerous scenario.
For many people in the Biden administration and in most Western governments, talk of reconquering Crimea is more of a posture, which they privately accept is unlikely in the real world. But some Eastern European governments like those in Poland and the Baltic states, which wield enormous influence in NATO and increasingly in the EU, are much more determined to carry on this war “to the end”. And there are certain Western figures, like Annalena Baerbock, the foreign minister of Germany, who are very hardline on Crimea."
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-truth-about-crimea/
Liverpool docks to Edge Hill
Hartford curve
Denton Junction to Ashton Moss
Brewery Sidings Curve
6 hours 41 minutes
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H37271/2023-04-27/detailed#allox_id=0
If your last para isn't a joke - well, it's not clear to me that using seabirds as sex aids was ever really commonplace, even in St. Kilda. I'm not sure we can use this as any sort of lesson. It's just something that happens right at the end of the bell curve.
Though there was the guy in Northumberland a couple of decades ago who got charged with indecent assualt of a dolphin, I suppose.
Picard Season 3: Better than sex.
Yes, bad things might happen in Russia if Crimea, or Putin, falls. But then again, better things might happen, whatever stronkiness asshats on DA's Telegram channels say. We cannot be responsible for what Russia does; we can only stand up for the values that say that what Russia is doing, and has been doing for years, is wrong.
What happens politically in Russia is up to Russia. We have very little influence on that: and people who pretend otherwise are being silly.
EDIT: Should add that to his credit while he may not be dropping the causes he is doing admirable work in offloading the crazier individuals when the opportunity presents itself.
Tesla’s lawyers risk setting a precedent here, for where the burden of proof should lie in the case of statements made by public figures.
The "Quail Level" cranks would need to do it both ways of course.
China does not want Russia to lose. It’s made that clear. The loss of Crimea would be Russia losing
Nor does China want a massively destabilised Russia along a 3000km border to its north. Russian defeat would ensure that instability too
So I suggest China would intervene to prevent Russia losing Crimea if it came to it. Providing arms and diplomatic pressure (and China has enormous trading leverage over half the world)
This is not the west v Putin. This is the west v Putin and Putin’s best friend, which is a superpower on a par with the USA, at least economically
China isn’t silly enough to get involved directly and face western sanctions. They’re more worried about keeping the Americans interested in Ukraine rather than Taiwan.
Biden has already choked off the export of high tech chips to China, that’s about as far as he can go without crippling the west’s economy more than he hurts China
One, because the West has leverage on China to persuade them not to do so. Two, because while China would quite like to see the West lose, they don't give two shits about Russia and have no intention of incurring any cost to help them out.
China's interests in, for example, Taiwan, are much more important - this is one reason why they've slapped down Russia's nuclear rhetoric, and they've made the use of NATO weapons on targets in Russia a red line for them.
Luke Cowan-Dickie was tossed into the “drunk tank” in Montpellier after being detained by police in the early hours of Wednesday morning. The England hooker was in France to undergo a medical with the Top 14 club, who have concerns over a neck injury that has left him in doubt for the World Cup.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/luke-cowan-dickie-thrown-in-drunk-tank-after-incident-in-montpellier-kz3rb7hct
And that single taking-the-knee photo with Ange at the height of the BLM movement (when it was mainstream to do so to show opposition to racism) is hardly a sign he's in the clutches of the radical identitarian left!
But anyway, what does this matter - you're not in a million years voting Labour, are you. You are not Deano. You're a creature of the right as much as I am of the left. Deano is neither. He's an apolitical floater.
Strategically, Russia has already lost. In my sitting-on-sofa and totally non-expert way, I'm now willing to call it. There's no way Russia comes out of this a stronger and stronkier country than it was before Putin started his madness. If their winter offensive had made progress; then there was a smidgen of a way for them to gain a limited strategic success. But not now; even if the Ukrainian offensive fails.
Russia is poorer financially; its military has been hollowed out. It has lost lots of friends and trading partners; and the trading partners it has got are definitely the senior partners in the trade. It's demographic problem has got *much* worse.
Losing Crimea would be a tiny strategic loss on top of the massive strategic loss it has already suffered, and one that is deepening every day.
And a reminder; we did not do this to Russia. Russia did it to itself.
A different outcome may have hinged on how quickly Germany could take Paris and French surrender in first month, and a war we think of as trenches for years was fluid in that first month, Germany not far from Paris.
I’m sure I read somewhere the smoking gun fact proving Leon’s and my argument, the Serb assassin had been trained and armed by France. But I can’t find it.
Crimea War was definitely result of naughty France stirring it.
Personally, I think China will make a play for a northern resource area, rather than Taiwan. The west won't intervene, aside from tut-tutting, and it'd be easy for China to play the 'oppressed brothers' card.
If they still carry coal. If not then someone from Just Stop Greenwashing By Burning Biomass of Dubious Credentials will presumably do it instead.
I had a friend who was part of a previous stop Drax train effort. They all later had their convictions quashed as part of the undercover police scandal.
The ideal outcome for China is a weakened but ultimately undefeated Russia evermore reliant on China, but a Russia still potent enough to distract the West, as China bids for Taiwan. So a stalemate around about where we are now would suit China excellently
That’s another reason I reckon an armistice this will arrive this year, with the front lines not dissimilar to what we see today, probably after both sides have tried and failed to significantly alter the facts on the ground
And if Ukraine launches a brilliant spring offensive and sweeps Russia out of Crimea and Donbas then fair play to them and Slava Ukraine!
And yes, I agree, it sounds unlikely. Perhaps what went on was some sort of frottage.
I think you could be spot on with that comparison. Two different countries, classrooms of school children in both countries being shown different maps. Because of historical ties to the same thing.
I got covid about a month ago (just as the Easter holidays began). I was +ve for a week, but it was followed by a wracking cough, and now that's mostly gone, I'm finding it relatively hard to get running even 10K again.
It's bu**ered my lungs worse than a seagull who's had acquaintance with Dave Lee of Roker Avenue, Sunderland.
I've gone from running marathons to barely being able to run 10K.
If Russia gets to hold onto territory that it has gained by force of arms then the West is weakened.
If Russia is pushed out of Ukraine then the principle of territorial integrity is strengthened. This is key for China over Taiwan, because most countries recognise Taiwan as part of China and not as an independent country.
If they intervene decisively on Russia's side - and Russia still loses - then they incur massive costs from the West and lose a massive amount of face, and for what? What difference would it make to them if Russia were to take Kramatorsk, or lose Svatove?
So I think that China can stand aside.
Where China gets provoked is if the West becomes overconfident and tries to invite the independence of Chechnya, or allow its weapons to be used to hit targets in Russia proper.
Russia as an economic vassal state of China, equally united against the West, is the optimum for them
Because at some point China really IS going to take on Taiwan, and having a supportive Russia at its back will be advantageous
It was what persuaded France and Russia they had shared strategic aims, which was a different matter but that was a response to the causes, not one of them.
The French were intent on following the rules of Revanche Club.
1) “N’en parlez jamais; pensez y toujours.”
2) Germany must be allowed to start the next war, since France needs allies.
3) Don't start the war, but be ready. The Germans will start the next war, don't worry about that.
He makes the point that, not only does China regarding much of the land in Siberia that was rightfully theirs but that Russia massacres large numbers of Chinese there which hasn't been forgotten.
It's also interesting that China has been building up its infrastructure to the border including links but Russia has done all it can to minimise the cross-boarding transportation capabilities.
If it wasn't for the nukes, and that China knows the USSR once proposed to the US that they should both nuke China, I wouldn't be surprised if Xi made a grab.
But yes, nukes are an issue. But Moscow are well aware that China is also nuclear-capable.
I hope China does neither Russia or Taiwan. Neither is good for the world.
But I reckon what's happened in the last 15 months makes a Taiwanese adventure from China less likely, as it's made the possibility and consequences of failure much more real.
He obviously won't win but that's a large progress from the 10-14% of a few weeks ago. While he's anti-vax, he is also anti-corporate establishment (see the argument breaking out at the moment over an American Prospect article saying Tucker Carlson had some good ideas).
I think Joe needs some of his diehard supporters on here who claim he's the most underrated President to get his numbers up...
Not so much these days, eh?
Read interesting story recently, about the mega-Musk rocket that blasted off, then blasted itself.
Seems that the Musk-eteers submitted enviro impact "statements" that were a wee bit inadequate. And "planning" that did NOT provide for reasonable provision for the mega-thrust.
With result that Port Isabel, Texas was/is covered by a HUGE amount of dust, rocks, boulders that came raining down post-launch:
NYT ($) - SpaceX’s Starship Kicked Up a Dust Cloud, Leaving Texans With a Mess
Residents of Port Isabel said that their city was covered in grime following SpaceX’s rocket launch on Thursday. The city said there was no “immediate concern for people’s health.”
SSI - Muskmelon-maniacs, please explain?
When a million people protested against the Iraq War, no one was suspended or expelled from the Labour Party. Our MP at the time was Karen Buck, and I know she had a difficult conversation with Blair, but he didn’t force her out.
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/04/27/not-welcome-here/
The Taiwanese wanted a mode for a point defence AA gun system, where it would track falling paratroops, and rather than blasting away, as it would at missiles, fire 1-2 rounds per paratrooper, and then move to the next target.
As part of this, he met some Taiwanese military and civilian government people. He was struck by how unified and focused they were on a requirement to brutally slaughter a part of a Chinese invasion force.