What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
I try and stay out of these debates because I don't have a huge amount to add but I do fear this war will just go on and on. The arrogance from some that Russia would surely be swiftly defeated seems to have quietly been forgotten. At the end of the day they do have nukes.
War going on and on is a better alternative than Russian occupation going on and on.
If it takes 8 years to liberate the whole of Ukraine, it takes 8 years. We should support Ukraine every single step of the way, until Russia is repelled back to their own borders.
Why does defeat need to be "swift"?
Its better for Ukraine to take their time, do it properly, do it well, and lose fewer people in the process than to send people into a meat grinder to try and do it on some arbitrarily rapid timeline.
The other question I have is this.
When the the Afghanistan withdrawal turned into a debacle, why couldn't the UK wave it's nuclear weapons about and demand half of Afghanistan?
As we would rather have any country on earth than Afghanistan, few natural resources, low income and a population of warlords and tribes and religious fanatics
The poll also suggested that there would be another pro-independence majority after the next Holyrood election, with the SNP winning 57 seats and the Greens ten. Labour would return 38 MSPs to comfortably overtake the Conservatives whose representation at Holyrood would almost halve, to 16 MSPs. The Liberal Democrats would win eight seats under this scenario.
YouGov interviewed 1,086 people aged 16 and older in Scotland between August 3 and 8.
Combined Unionist parties on 62 MSPs however ahead of the SNP on 57 MSPs on that projection and just 5 behind the combined SNP and Greens total. Sarwar now has a net positive rating with Scots unlike Yousaf so at least a chance he will be next FM
Ah, HYUFD arithmetic where a minority of Unionist msps beats a majority of pro Indy msps. Who do you think votes in an FM? Rumours of the death of the SNP greatly exaggerated in any case.
Agree with that. Starmer/Sarwar still struggling to achieve definitive tipping point. The main danger to SNP is civil war breaking out over the alliance with the Greens. That would follow if Nats get hammered at GE but the result still appears open at the moment.
Starmer/Sarwar have had some success in convincing anti EU anti immigration Red wall voters in England and vaguely progressive pro EU voters in Scotland that Labour is the party for them, but the essential contradiction in those positions has to come to a head sooner or later. Pretending to these groups that the other doesn't exist only works for so long.
Seems the SNP have stabilised a little and much will depend on the outcome of the police investigations
As far as Starmer is concerned he remains an English man from London trying to ride two horses at once, with differences over trans gender policies and the 2 children rule between himself and Sawar, and indeed Khan and himself over ULEZ
I note a lot of wishcasting about Keir Starmer by Tory and SNP supporters: a sense that any time soon he's going to be "found out", and people will return to their rightful home.
But this is the sort of thinking that landed Labour in trouble in the mid 2000s, kicked them out of most of Scotland in 2015 and buried the Lib Dems in the South West in the same election. And ejected Labour from swathes of the North and Midlands in 2019. The idea a bloc of voters belongs rightfully to your party. It's the same tendency that could nobble the Tories in the home counties and South Coast next year (fingers crossed) and reverse some of those 2015 SNP gains in Scotland. It leads to supporters ignoring the warning signs and convincing themselves that their voters will come home once they find out the opposition for who they really are.
I'm convinced most of the opposition just assumed that voters would see through Boris' bluster. They probably did, but they voted for him anyway. Same with Keir. It's not that voters are unaware of his or Labour's limitations. They just seem to have concluded it's time for a change.
The difficulty about projecting how well Labour are going to do is that Starmer isn't particularly popular, he is just less unpopular than the alternatives. This means it looks like Labour is on course to win a parliamentary majority, and a big one, but it doesn't say much about how long that majority can be held together and what Starmer will do with it. So far he seems to be flouting policies to the right of Blair - which is not really the platform he was elected to the Labour leadership on. If he runs in a GE as that figure, I could see lots of voters going "back" to the SNP (although less so the Tories). On the other hand, if he tries to paint himself as someone who wants to change things significantly - who wants to fix a "broken Britain" - he might alienate Tory voters who really just want things to go "back to normal" with low interest rates and the like.
I think we could see a very large Labour majority that becomes very unpopular very quickly because it doesn't seem like many voters actively like Starmer's political vision for the UK.
I'm not sure I agree with this either. The voter ratings for Starmer are OK. Not stellar, but not bad at all. That's probably ideal ahead of an election. If expectations were sky high then the risk of rapid disillusionment would be greater. His political vision isn't transformational certainly, it's a bit prosaic. But it's not scary.
Labour's biggest risk after an election is the Conservatives getting their act together. How likely is that? I strongly suspect they have at least one more round of craziness in them before they wake up from their fever dream.
Which was the situation with Margaret Thatcher going into the 1979 election. There are parallels between today and 1979, more I think than with 1997. Also parallels between Starmer and early Thatcher, for better or for worse.
One difference with 1979 is that voters mostly quite liked Callaghan (it was the unions they were sick of). Not so much love for Sunak.
Agreed.
Nevertheless if people are sick of a situation - the unions in 1979 or feckless government in 2024 - they will want to see change. Starmer will need to deliver that perceived change.
Yes. I think he will, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. IMHO the problem the current government has is that it keeps making decisions on the basis of the prejudices of its supporters rather than objective reality. Hence it keeps making bad decisions. This is very well summarised by the Marina Hyde article I circulated yesterday. I think Starmer will go down a much more rational and evidence based path. Nothing too exciting or daring, but sensible policymaking which, over time, should deliver better outcomes. Whether that will deliver enough change is less clear to me - but it is always worth remembering that change can be for the worse (something Red Wall Brexit voters forgot).
Vowing to take an axe to North Sea Oil, whilst still planning to import vast amounts of oil from the Saudis and Americans, at considerably higher environmental costs (to say nothing of the cost to the exchequer), isn't sensible policy making. It's disastrous economical sabotage from someone who values being praised at Davos more than any improvement they could make to the lives of British people.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
I try and stay out of these debates because I don't have a huge amount to add but I do fear this war will just go on and on. The arrogance from some that Russia would surely be swiftly defeated seems to have quietly been forgotten. At the end of the day they do have nukes.
War going on and on is a better alternative than Russian occupation going on and on.
If it takes 8 years to liberate the whole of Ukraine, it takes 8 years. We should support Ukraine every single step of the way, until Russia is repelled back to their own borders.
Why does defeat need to be "swift"?
Its better for Ukraine to take their time, do it properly, do it well, and lose fewer people in the process than to send people into a meat grinder to try and do it on some arbitrarily rapid timeline.
The other question I have is this.
When the the Afghanistan withdrawal turned into a debacle, why couldn't the UK wave it's nuclear weapons about and demand half of Afghanistan?
As we would rather have any country on earth than Afghanistan, few natural resources, low income and a population of warlords and tribes and religious fanatics
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
If Russia loses now, licks its wounds, and tries this all again in a few decades - that's not a solution to the issue. If Russia loses and its people react poorly, either causing Balkanisation or general upheaval, we don't know what could happen. These things need to be considered - not to the point where anyone should consider conceding to their demands and the invasion - but to prevent continued loss of life.
If Russia loses now that is a solution to the issue.
If Russia tries it again in a few decades, they need to lose again. That would be a solution to then.
If Russia loses and balkanises, that would be fantastic. A dissolution of the Muscovite Empire and breakdown of Russia into smaller parts that are free from the tyranny of Moscow would be a progressive step for the people liberated from Moscow's tyranny.
People from Macedonia, Croatia, Slovenia etc now are much better off not being oppressed by Serbia. Its a tragedy that it took violence to liberate some of them, but not a tragedy that they are free now.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
I try and stay out of these debates because I don't have a huge amount to add but I do fear this war will just go on and on. The arrogance from some that Russia would surely be swiftly defeated seems to have quietly been forgotten. At the end of the day they do have nukes.
War going on and on is a better alternative than Russian occupation going on and on.
If it takes 8 years to liberate the whole of Ukraine, it takes 8 years. We should support Ukraine every single step of the way, until Russia is repelled back to their own borders.
Why does defeat need to be "swift"?
Its better for Ukraine to take their time, do it properly, do it well, and lose fewer people in the process than to send people into a meat grinder to try and do it on some arbitrarily rapid timeline.
The other question I have is this.
When the the Afghanistan withdrawal turned into a debacle, why couldn't the UK wave it's nuclear weapons about and demand half of Afghanistan?
As we would rather have any country on earth than Afghanistan, few natural resources, low income and a population of warlords and tribes and religious fanatics
And yet the great powers have fought over Afghanistan for something like 200 years.
If they have so little to offer, why does everyone keep invading them?
There seems to be a new form of cope from the Tory faithful which is that soon SKS will be found out and somehow ending up throwing away a 22 point lead.
But let's look at the reality, SKS has managed since 2019 to out-gun and destroy literally all of his political opponents both inside and out of the party, mostly by playing a very long and tactical game.
These people under-estimate him continuously and I would argue at their peril. They don't seem to want to understand why or how he has done so well, similar to Labour in 2019.
The Tories are in denial.
I think that Starmer has done what he wanted internally, but that hasn't made him very popular amongst the base of Labour activists. And the majority he seems to be looking at seems to be more about the Tories fucking everything up so badly rather than him presenting anything the public actually want.
My concern is that we get a Labour party with a big majority that is essentially Tory-lite, and that the Tories go further to the right and the electorate continue to see a lowering standard of living. That is the ideal scenario for the right wing freaks to really pounce - denounce the old Tory establishment as the captured opposition of progressives, denounce the Labour party as ineffectual lefty elites, and embrace real hard line authoritarian nationalism. That's the choice of socialism or barbarism: an acceptance that the state does have a responsibility and the ability to safeguard peoples lives or the continuation of the cycle of capitalism boom and busts and the eventual rising of demagogues who capitalise on that.
I think that is a risk but personally I still think social democracy is the most sustainable route to prosperity combined with a society at ease with itself, and so I have faith that a period of sensible centre left government can turn the country around. My bigger worry is that new media have allowed for the spread of hard right propaganda and BS 'anti elite' sentiment that is impervious to evidence, making the emergence of far right populist type demagogues far easier. We imagine ourselves immune to Argentina style politics in this country (with Argentina style economic outcomes) but I think that increasingly we are not.
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
I try and stay out of these debates because I don't have a huge amount to add but I do fear this war will just go on and on. The arrogance from some that Russia would surely be swiftly defeated seems to have quietly been forgotten. At the end of the day they do have nukes.
War going on and on is a better alternative than Russian occupation going on and on.
If it takes 8 years to liberate the whole of Ukraine, it takes 8 years. We should support Ukraine every single step of the way, until Russia is repelled back to their own borders.
Why does defeat need to be "swift"?
Its better for Ukraine to take their time, do it properly, do it well, and lose fewer people in the process than to send people into a meat grinder to try and do it on some arbitrarily rapid timeline.
We're now past the territorial changes following Russia's initial invasion and the largely succesful Ukraine counter-offensive. But over the last year or so, the only major changes have been Russia gaining Bakhmut and Ukraine I believe taking a handful of villages in this current counter-offensive. It's all moving at a snail's pace - the excitement about Prigozhin's aborted coup and a few bridge hits aside neither side seems to be going anywhere. The Syrian civil war is still ongoing, albeit with no shifts in any fronts for three years. The longer this war goes on the slower the front shifts are going to be - and with the GOP being largely Ukraine sceptical & european polling showing lukewarmness on the war I think long term Putin just has to wait it out to basically de facto claim most of the current Ukrainian territory Russia holds quite honestly.
There seems to be a new form of cope from the Tory faithful which is that soon SKS will be found out and somehow ending up throwing away a 22 point lead.
But let's look at the reality, SKS has managed since 2019 to out-gun and destroy literally all of his political opponents both inside and out of the party, mostly by playing a very long and tactical game.
These people under-estimate him continuously and I would argue at their peril. They don't seem to want to understand why or how he has done so well, similar to Labour in 2019.
The Tories are in denial.
I think that Starmer has done what he wanted internally, but that hasn't made him very popular amongst the base of Labour activists. And the majority he seems to be looking at seems to be more about the Tories fucking everything up so badly rather than him presenting anything the public actually want.
My concern is that we get a Labour party with a big majority that is essentially Tory-lite, and that the Tories go further to the right and the electorate continue to see a lowering standard of living. That is the ideal scenario for the right wing freaks to really pounce - denounce the old Tory establishment as the captured opposition of progressives, denounce the Labour party as ineffectual lefty elites, and embrace real hard line authoritarian nationalism. That's the choice of socialism or barbarism: an acceptance that the state does have a responsibility and the ability to safeguard peoples lives or the continuation of the cycle of capitalism boom and busts and the eventual rising of demagogues who capitalise on that.
Labour did really well in council elections. That suggests the activist base is doing fine, in the sense of people who go out and work for the party. I see their main weaknesses as Starmer's lack of ability to inspire widespread faith among the electorate, and a bunch of locally divisive activities in London, Scotland, etc. As for the idea that abolishing capitalism and moving to a more North Korean style economy will save society from authoritarianism, the reader can judge the likelihood (though I know some people think abolishing capitalism just means "iPhones, but nicer").
Another pretty big drop in CPI, I think the end of year rate is probably going to be ~4.5%, if oil prices fall then maybe 4%.
Core CPI looks tougher to shift with wage data endlessly rising and 2.5m people long term sick. If the government wants to fix the labour market then it needs to get serious about sickness benefits reform. Matthew Paris had it bang on a couple of weeks ago, too many people are realising that it's easy to get signed off sick for stress and opt out of working. For people aged 50-64 who have paid off mortgages it's a realistic option to live on sickness benefits plus all the other assistance you get for it like council tax reductions etc...
Once again the safety net has become a way of life for some people. This time it's the comfortably off middle classes opting out of work by saying they're too stressed. It's something the Labour will need to address on day one because it now seems that young people are not only being asked to support pensions for the old, childcare for their kids, endless student loan repayments, old age care in the NHS but now also for the lazy middle classes who are deciding not to work because they're "stressed".
Got a guy who's got signed off sick from work who worked for me up to last month.
He was basically a lazy fucker who was shy of a hard day's work unless it was easy and got sunshine blown up his arse.
We're a professional services firm not a holiday club.
So why haven't you dismissed him / managed him out for poor performance?
"Constructive dismissal" you can't get rid of people if they've been signed off sick with stress or some other bogus mental health issue they've made up and convinced some bleeding heart therapist is a real problem. The government needs to seriously reform being signed off for mental health concerns, at the moment it's become a free for all and the indolent have realised they can turn it into a lifestyle choice.
"Got a guy who's got signed off sick from work who worked for me up to last month."
"He was basically a lazy fucker who was shy of a hard day's work unless it was easy and got sunshine blown up his arse."
I cannot imagine what might have induced any level of employee stress here.
Instead of creating the opportunity/necessity to be signed off sick, perhaps a better management approach in the first place may have prevented it getting to that stage.
A better management approach would be to sack people who are regularly off "sick", thus adding more to the real stress of people who are turning up to work who have to do not just their own job, but carry the weight of the skivers.
Everyone in the world suffers from stress. You need ways to manage your own stress. It should not be a reason not to turn in to work, that just hurts your colleagues more. If your job is too stressful for you, go get a different one, don't make your colleagues carry your burdens for you.
Strangely enough, though, if you pay people good wages and provide them with decent working conditions, cases of stress-related illness tend to be less common. Of course, if you do the right thing by your employees and some people are still taking many more days off sick than you would reasonably expect them to then you have good grounds to begin dismissal proceedings.
The poll also suggested that there would be another pro-independence majority after the next Holyrood election, with the SNP winning 57 seats and the Greens ten. Labour would return 38 MSPs to comfortably overtake the Conservatives whose representation at Holyrood would almost halve, to 16 MSPs. The Liberal Democrats would win eight seats under this scenario.
YouGov interviewed 1,086 people aged 16 and older in Scotland between August 3 and 8.
Combined Unionist parties on 62 MSPs however ahead of the SNP on 57 MSPs on that projection and just 5 behind the combined SNP and Greens total. Sarwar now has a net positive rating with Scots unlike Yousaf so at least a chance he will be next FM
Ah, HYUFD arithmetic where a minority of Unionist msps beats a majority of pro Indy msps. Who do you think votes in an FM? Rumours of the death of the SNP greatly exaggerated in any case.
Agree with that. Starmer/Sarwar still struggling to achieve definitive tipping point. The main danger to SNP is civil war breaking out over the alliance with the Greens. That would follow if Nats get hammered at GE but the result still appears open at the moment.
Starmer/Sarwar have had some success in convincing anti EU anti immigration Red wall voters in England and vaguely progressive pro EU voters in Scotland that Labour is the party for them, but the essential contradiction in those positions has to come to a head sooner or later. Pretending to these groups that the other doesn't exist only works for so long.
Seems the SNP have stabilised a little and much will depend on the outcome of the police investigations
As far as Starmer is concerned he remains an English man from London trying to ride two horses at once, with differences over trans gender policies and the 2 children rule between himself and Sawar, and indeed Khan and himself over ULEZ
I note a lot of wishcasting about Keir Starmer by Tory and SNP supporters: a sense that any time soon he's going to be "found out", and people will return to their rightful home.
But this is the sort of thinking that landed Labour in trouble in the mid 2000s, kicked them out of most of Scotland in 2015 and buried the Lib Dems in the South West in the same election. And ejected Labour from swathes of the North and Midlands in 2019. The idea a bloc of voters belongs rightfully to your party. It's the same tendency that could nobble the Tories in the home counties and South Coast next year (fingers crossed) and reverse some of those 2015 SNP gains in Scotland. It leads to supporters ignoring the warning signs and convincing themselves that their voters will come home once they find out the opposition for who they really are.
I'm convinced most of the opposition just assumed that voters would see through Boris' bluster. They probably did, but they voted for him anyway. Same with Keir. It's not that voters are unaware of his or Labour's limitations. They just seem to have concluded it's time for a change.
The difficulty about projecting how well Labour are going to do is that Starmer isn't particularly popular, he is just less unpopular than the alternatives. This means it looks like Labour is on course to win a parliamentary majority, and a big one, but it doesn't say much about how long that majority can be held together and what Starmer will do with it. So far he seems to be flouting policies to the right of Blair - which is not really the platform he was elected to the Labour leadership on. If he runs in a GE as that figure, I could see lots of voters going "back" to the SNP (although less so the Tories). On the other hand, if he tries to paint himself as someone who wants to change things significantly - who wants to fix a "broken Britain" - he might alienate Tory voters who really just want things to go "back to normal" with low interest rates and the like.
I think we could see a very large Labour majority that becomes very unpopular very quickly because it doesn't seem like many voters actively like Starmer's political vision for the UK.
I'm not sure I agree with this either. The voter ratings for Starmer are OK. Not stellar, but not bad at all. That's probably ideal ahead of an election. If expectations were sky high then the risk of rapid disillusionment would be greater. His political vision isn't transformational certainly, it's a bit prosaic. But it's not scary.
Labour's biggest risk after an election is the Conservatives getting their act together. How likely is that? I strongly suspect they have at least one more round of craziness in them before they wake up from their fever dream.
Which was the situation with Margaret Thatcher going into the 1979 election. There are parallels between today and 1979, more I think than with 1997. Also parallels between Starmer and early Thatcher, for better or for worse.
More 1964 than 1979. Starmer is more Wilson than Thatcher or Blair and Sunak could be another Douglas Home, a posh Tory PM for only a short time who takes over a chaotic government, puts in some competent leadership and does a bit better than expected in the general election albeit still losing
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then...
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now.
Defeat looks like pushing them back to their own borders. I couldn't care less what is "enough" for Putin, he needs to lose.
Pushing them back to their own borders won't stop the fighting. It would probably result in a GPW style total mobilisation in the RF. So that's not enough of a defeat. Try again.
Pushing them back to their own borders will stop the fighting. They'll have been defeated and Ukraine won't be seeking to liberate any more territory. The idea that having been defeated Russia is going to continue fighting is utterly farcical - what on earth for?
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then...
We can at least agree on that formulation.
Exactly. People calling for a defeat really have no idea what the impact or time frame will be. This will go on indefinitely.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
Pushing them back to their own borders will stop the fighting. They'll have been defeated and Ukraine won't be seeking to liberate any more territory. The idea that having been defeated Russia is going to continue fighting is utterly farcical - what on earth for?
That is enough of a defeat.
I have no idea how you can be so confident in this.
The poll also suggested that there would be another pro-independence majority after the next Holyrood election, with the SNP winning 57 seats and the Greens ten. Labour would return 38 MSPs to comfortably overtake the Conservatives whose representation at Holyrood would almost halve, to 16 MSPs. The Liberal Democrats would win eight seats under this scenario.
YouGov interviewed 1,086 people aged 16 and older in Scotland between August 3 and 8.
Combined Unionist parties on 62 MSPs however ahead of the SNP on 57 MSPs on that projection and just 5 behind the combined SNP and Greens total. Sarwar now has a net positive rating with Scots unlike Yousaf so at least a chance he will be next FM
Ah, HYUFD arithmetic where a minority of Unionist msps beats a majority of pro Indy msps. Who do you think votes in an FM? Rumours of the death of the SNP greatly exaggerated in any case.
Agree with that. Starmer/Sarwar still struggling to achieve definitive tipping point. The main danger to SNP is civil war breaking out over the alliance with the Greens. That would follow if Nats get hammered at GE but the result still appears open at the moment.
Starmer/Sarwar have had some success in convincing anti EU anti immigration Red wall voters in England and vaguely progressive pro EU voters in Scotland that Labour is the party for them, but the essential contradiction in those positions has to come to a head sooner or later. Pretending to these groups that the other doesn't exist only works for so long.'Scarce
The uniform bloc of angry racist red wall voters in football strips and union jack tattoos is a lazy myth. See the header: support for staying out of the EU is now scarcely higher than GB support for the Tories. That means most people planning to vote Labour are not going to be put off by a gradual shift to a more pro-EU stance.
Nor, I suspect, are all Labour-curious voters in Scotland going to be begging for immediate rejoin, anymore than they are in Labour stronghold London where the remain vote in my constituency was nearly 80% and Labour have a 30k majority.
'Scarcely higher' 37% still for Leave is about 10% higher than the current Tory poll rating
It isn't 37% for Leave, nor for that matter 63% for Rejoin. It is 30% for Leave, 50% Rejoin and 20% DK or Won't Vote. The header poll excludes that 20%.
So about the same as Con plus REFUK at 30%.
Even 30% for Leave including DKs is higher than the current Tory rating including DKs
I don't buy the idea that the Russian Army is invincible and can't be defeated.
I don't either. I'm sure 1st Cav would punch them out of their trainers in short order.
However, AFU, even with their exciting new "kit", don't look remotely capable of inflicting the sort of overwhelming and unequivocal defeat that would end the SMO on favourable terms for Ukraine and result in a stable and lasting settlement. The nugatory progress of die Gegenoffensive testifies to this.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then...
We can at least agree on that formulation.
Exactly. People calling for a defeat really have no idea what the impact or time frame will be. This will go on indefinitely.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then...
We can at least agree on that formulation.
Exactly. People calling for a defeat really have no idea what the impact or time frame will be. This will go on indefinitely.
Why are these territories "highly disputable"?
There was a referendum when the Soviet Union broke up, and they *all* voted to join Ukraine.
Such an offer encourages Putin to continue with his war by creating an expectation that NATO countries may cave in.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Quoting Medvedev as a representative of Russian policy is like quoting Liz Truss as a guide to British policy - yes, she's still got a following but she's not in power. Medvedev (who used to be seen as a moderate technocrat) is I suspect cynically on maneouvres in case Putin falls.
Bartholomew's view that we shouldn't care who runs Russia is seriously mistaken IMO - it's the equivalent of not caring who ran Germany after WW1. It's hard to tell whether a total Ukrainian victory would lead to revenge-seeking nutcases taking over in Russia, but it's ostrich-like not to factor in the possibility.
The case for a negotiated settlement, however, is more that neither side actually looks like winning however much we want them to, so encouraging years of slaughter as our sole policy option is a bad idea. At present, both sides think they can win so they're not up for serious talks, but we should try to encourage that rather than put all our eggs into the escalation basket.
We should care who runs Russia after Putin falls: after Putin falls.
We shouldn't care who runs Russia after Putin today, because its unknowable. Its not in our control. Unless we're going to march on Moscow and install a leader of our choosing (hint: we won't) then its not something we get a say in, so there's no point us worrying about it yet.
Once we know who runs Russia after Putin we can worry about that then, but right now we have bigger fish to fry.
As for your claim that because war is difficult we should encourage a negotiated settlement - no, just no. More years of slaughtering Russian occupiers is absolutely the right solution for as long as Ukraine is willing and able to fight to liberate its own territory. The way to de-escalate the war is to kick Russia out of Ukraine, there is no alternative.
There seems to be a new form of cope from the Tory faithful which is that soon SKS will be found out and somehow ending up throwing away a 22 point lead.
But let's look at the reality, SKS has managed since 2019 to out-gun and destroy literally all of his political opponents both inside and out of the party, mostly by playing a very long and tactical game.
These people under-estimate him continuously and I would argue at their peril. They don't seem to want to understand why or how he has done so well, similar to Labour in 2019.
The Tories are in denial.
I think that Starmer has done what he wanted internally, but that hasn't made him very popular amongst the base of Labour activists. And the majority he seems to be looking at seems to be more about the Tories fucking everything up so badly rather than him presenting anything the public actually want.
My concern is that we get a Labour party with a big majority that is essentially Tory-lite, and that the Tories go further to the right and the electorate continue to see a lowering standard of living. That is the ideal scenario for the right wing freaks to really pounce - denounce the old Tory establishment as the captured opposition of progressives, denounce the Labour party as ineffectual lefty elites, and embrace real hard line authoritarian nationalism. That's the choice of socialism or barbarism: an acceptance that the state does have a responsibility and the ability to safeguard peoples lives or the continuation of the cycle of capitalism boom and busts and the eventual rising of demagogues who capitalise on that.
Labour did really well in council elections. That suggests the activist base is doing fine, in the sense of people who go out and work for the party. I see their main weaknesses as Starmer's lack of ability to inspire widespread faith among the electorate, and a bunch of locally divisive activities in London, Scotland, etc. As for the idea that abolishing capitalism and moving to a more North Korean style economy will save society from authoritarianism, the reader can judge the likelihood (though I know some people think abolishing capitalism just means "iPhones, but nicer").
They didn't do that well, they got 35% NEV compared to the 47% Blair's New Labour got in the 1995 local elections.
The LDs did much better than Labour in May's local elections where they got 20% NEV
Another pretty big drop in CPI, I think the end of year rate is probably going to be ~4.5%, if oil prices fall then maybe 4%.
Core CPI looks tougher to shift with wage data endlessly rising and 2.5m people long term sick. If the government wants to fix the labour market then it needs to get serious about sickness benefits reform. Matthew Paris had it bang on a couple of weeks ago, too many people are realising that it's easy to get signed off sick for stress and opt out of working. For people aged 50-64 who have paid off mortgages it's a realistic option to live on sickness benefits plus all the other assistance you get for it like council tax reductions etc...
Once again the safety net has become a way of life for some people. This time it's the comfortably off middle classes opting out of work by saying they're too stressed. It's something the Labour will need to address on day one because it now seems that young people are not only being asked to support pensions for the old, childcare for their kids, endless student loan repayments, old age care in the NHS but now also for the lazy middle classes who are deciding not to work because they're "stressed".
Got a guy who's got signed off sick from work who worked for me up to last month.
He was basically a lazy fucker who was shy of a hard day's work unless it was easy and got sunshine blown up his arse.
We're a professional services firm not a holiday club.
So why haven't you dismissed him / managed him out for poor performance?
"Constructive dismissal" you can't get rid of people if they've been signed off sick with stress or some other bogus mental health issue they've made up and convinced some bleeding heart therapist is a real problem. The government needs to seriously reform being signed off for mental health concerns, at the moment it's become a free for all and the indolent have realised they can turn it into a lifestyle choice.
"Got a guy who's got signed off sick from work who worked for me up to last month."
"He was basically a lazy fucker who was shy of a hard day's work unless it was easy and got sunshine blown up his arse."
I cannot imagine what might have induced any level of employee stress here.
Instead of creating the opportunity/necessity to be signed off sick, perhaps a better management approach in the first place may have prevented it getting to that stage.
A better management approach would be to sack people who are regularly off "sick", thus adding more to the real stress of people who are turning up to work who have to do not just their own job, but carry the weight of the skivers.
Everyone in the world suffers from stress. You need ways to manage your own stress. It should not be a reason not to turn in to work, that just hurts your colleagues more. If your job is too stressful for you, go get a different one, don't make your colleagues carry your burdens for you.
Strangely enough, though, if you pay people good wages and provide them with decent working conditions, cases of stress-related illness tend to be less common. Of course, if you do the right thing by your employees and some people are still taking many more days off sick than you would reasonably expect them to then you have good grounds to begin dismissal proceedings.
Stress/sickness rates above or below the mean for the industry are a standard benchmark in organisation analysis for Operations Research.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Quoting Medvedev as a representative of Russian policy is like quoting Liz Truss as a guide to British policy - yes, she's still got a following but she's not in power. Medvedev (who used to be seen as a moderate technocrat) is I suspect cynically on maneouvres in case Putin falls.
Bartholomew's view that we shouldn't care who runs Russia is seriously mistaken IMO - it's the equivalent of not caring who ran Germany after WW1. It's hard to tell whether a total Ukrainian victory would lead to revenge-seeking nutcases taking over in Russia, but it's ostrich-like not to factor in the possibility.
The case for a negotiated settlement, however, is more that neither side actually looks like winning however much we want them to, so encouraging years of slaughter as our sole policy option is a bad idea. At present, both sides think they can win so they're not up for serious talks, but we should try to encourage that rather than put all our eggs into the escalation basket.
I think there's a delusion running through your posts on this issue that the West is in control and can choose the outcome it wants (and therefore we should choose the option with zero deaths which means stopping the fighting now).
It's important to remember that this is happening because of the choice by Putin and Russia to invade, and we are reacting to that choice. We can't force Russia to be a reasonable and trustworthy counterparty in negotiations by finding a magic form of words, or a perfect compromise.
We have to accept the reality that their invasion showed us. They do not share our view of a world run by rules, agreements, negotiations and peaceful coexistence. They have a view of the world based on power, domination, imperialism and unilateral action. They are imposing that world view on the people of Ukraine and we either do all we can to resist that, or the future for the world is a much darker place.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now.
Defeat looks like pushing them back to their own borders. I couldn't care less what is "enough" for Putin, he needs to lose.
Pushing them back to their own borders won't stop the fighting. It would probably result in a GPW style total mobilisation in the RF. So that's not enough of a defeat. Try again.
Pushing them back to their own borders will stop the fighting. They'll have been defeated and Ukraine won't be seeking to liberate any more territory. The idea that having been defeated Russia is going to continue fighting is utterly farcical - what on earth for?
That is enough of a defeat.
What they’re going to go back to their old borders and say “fair cop, guv, you’ve beaten us”. Utterly naive. If they can keep fighting for the territories they’ve annexed there’s a very good chance they will.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
I try and stay out of these debates because I don't have a huge amount to add but I do fear this war will just go on and on. The arrogance from some that Russia would surely be swiftly defeated seems to have quietly been forgotten. At the end of the day they do have nukes.
War going on and on is a better alternative than Russian occupation going on and on.
If it takes 8 years to liberate the whole of Ukraine, it takes 8 years. We should support Ukraine every single step of the way, until Russia is repelled back to their own borders.
Why does defeat need to be "swift"?
Its better for Ukraine to take their time, do it properly, do it well, and lose fewer people in the process than to send people into a meat grinder to try and do it on some arbitrarily rapid timeline.
The other question I have is this.
When the the Afghanistan withdrawal turned into a debacle, why couldn't the UK wave it's nuclear weapons about and demand half of Afghanistan?
As we would rather have any country on earth than Afghanistan, few natural resources, low income and a population of warlords and tribes and religious fanatics
And yet the great powers have fought over Afghanistan for something like 200 years.
If they have so little to offer, why does everyone keep invading them?
In 2001 it was to stop Bin Laden, the Soviets invaded to prop up a pro Communist government and the British to secure India.
However Afghan invasions normally end in disaster as it is mountainous and near impossible to occupy successfully and securely and in 2001 Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan anyway.
As Macmillan famously reported told Home when he succeeded him as PM 'Don't invade Afghanistan dear boy and you should be alright'
Pushing them back to their own borders will stop the fighting. They'll have been defeated and Ukraine won't be seeking to liberate any more territory. The idea that having been defeated Russia is going to continue fighting is utterly farcical - what on earth for?
That is enough of a defeat.
I have no idea how you can be so confident in this.
Because of the rest of the post you didn't bold?
Ukraine won't be fighting to liberate any more territory, so that element of fighting ends.
And having been defeated, why would Russia seek to re-invade? They'll have lost.
So that means the war will be over.
Its not like America is seeking to re-invade Afghanistan right now is it?
If it takes time, it takes time. And if Russia need to be defeated again in the future, they need to be defeated again in the future. But defending and supporting our allies and ensuring the liberation of all occupied territory is unequivocally the right thing to do.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
I try and stay out of these debates because I don't have a huge amount to add but I do fear this war will just go on and on. The arrogance from some that Russia would surely be swiftly defeated seems to have quietly been forgotten. At the end of the day they do have nukes.
War going on and on is a better alternative than Russian occupation going on and on.
If it takes 8 years to liberate the whole of Ukraine, it takes 8 years. We should support Ukraine every single step of the way, until Russia is repelled back to their own borders.
Why does defeat need to be "swift"?
Its better for Ukraine to take their time, do it properly, do it well, and lose fewer people in the process than to send people into a meat grinder to try and do it on some arbitrarily rapid timeline.
The other question I have is this.
When the the Afghanistan withdrawal turned into a debacle, why couldn't the UK wave it's nuclear weapons about and demand half of Afghanistan?
As we would rather have any country on earth than Afghanistan, few natural resources, low income and a population of warlords and tribes and religious fanatics
After we nuked it a few times in a genocidal temper tantrum, the locals wouldn't be a problem, of course.
So why isn't the UK willy waving with nukes a valid option? Or is it only countries that are Sociopathic Toddlers (Russia) that are allowed to do that?
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
The terms of surrender are easy. The Russians go back to Russia, as it was defined in 1991, and agree to keep the peace. Friendly neighbours of Ukraine will make sure this happens.
Putin, or at least those around him, knows that the actual use of a nuclear weapon will guarantee a robust response from other nuclear powers. If he’s lucky, it will be a large but conventional response of ICMBs towards military targets in Russia.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
I try and stay out of these debates because I don't have a huge amount to add but I do fear this war will just go on and on. The arrogance from some that Russia would surely be swiftly defeated seems to have quietly been forgotten. At the end of the day they do have nukes.
War going on and on is a better alternative than Russian occupation going on and on.
If it takes 8 years to liberate the whole of Ukraine, it takes 8 years. We should support Ukraine every single step of the way, until Russia is repelled back to their own borders.
Why does defeat need to be "swift"?
Its better for Ukraine to take their time, do it properly, do it well, and lose fewer people in the process than to send people into a meat grinder to try and do it on some arbitrarily rapid timeline.
The other question I have is this.
When the the Afghanistan withdrawal turned into a debacle, why couldn't the UK wave it's nuclear weapons about and demand half of Afghanistan?
As we would rather have any country on earth than Afghanistan, few natural resources, low income and a population of warlords and tribes and religious fanatics
We couldn't trade it for Northern Ireland?
I would far rather have Northern Ireland than Afghanistan, indeed I would even rather have North Korea or Sudan than Afghanistan
This GE cycle is starting to be unlike anything we've seen before.
These 20 point leads are stubbornly high.
Labour were around 20% ahead 18 months before the 1992 election.
OK, I'll bite.
Let's take May 24, Oct 24 and Jan 25 as possible election dates. We are in Aug 23, so 9, 14 and 17 months out respectively.
The equivalent number of months out in the cycle ending Apr 92 would be: Jul 91, Feb 91 and Nov 90 respectively.
Poll averages for these months per Wikipedia:
Jul 91: Lab 42.8, Con 37.5 Feb 91: Con 45.0, Lab 41.2 Nov 90 (Thatcher): Con 35.8, Lab 47.3 Nov 90 (Major): Con 45.8, Lab 39.3 Nov 90 (Whole month): Con 38.8, Lab 44.9
and
Oct 90: Con 33.6, Lab 45.9
The regression tops out briefly, immediately prior to the leader change, at 13 points.
August 23 polls so far: Con 26.0, Lab 45.8
This after all credible leader changes and part of months of sustained poll leads of this order.
Whatever comparison can be made, it's not like for like.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now.
Defeat looks like pushing them back to their own borders. I couldn't care less what is "enough" for Putin, he needs to lose.
Pushing them back to their own borders won't stop the fighting. It would probably result in a GPW style total mobilisation in the RF. So that's not enough of a defeat. Try again.
Pushing them back to their own borders will stop the fighting. They'll have been defeated and Ukraine won't be seeking to liberate any more territory. The idea that having been defeated Russia is going to continue fighting is utterly farcical - what on earth for?
That is enough of a defeat.
What they’re going to go back to their old borders and say “fair cop, guv, you’ve beaten us”. Utterly naive. If they can keep fighting for the territories they’ve annexed there’s a very good chance they will.
The thing is, if you give them a land bridge to Crimea, and a chuck of the rest of Eastern Ukraine, why won't they come back for seconds?
After all they changed their minds in 2014 and 2022.
Such a "peace" will make one thing utterly inevitable. A strange sunrise in the Black Sea - as Ukraine tests a nuclear weapon.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now.
Defeat looks like pushing them back to their own borders. I couldn't care less what is "enough" for Putin, he needs to lose.
Pushing them back to their own borders won't stop the fighting. It would probably result in a GPW style total mobilisation in the RF. So that's not enough of a defeat. Try again.
Pushing them back to their own borders will stop the fighting. They'll have been defeated and Ukraine won't be seeking to liberate any more territory. The idea that having been defeated Russia is going to continue fighting is utterly farcical - what on earth for?
That is enough of a defeat.
What they’re going to go back to their old borders and say “fair cop, guv, you’ve beaten us”. Utterly naive. If they can keep fighting for the territories they’ve annexed there’s a very good chance they will.
They're fighting to keep the territories now.
If they're pushed back to their own borders then that means they've lost that fight. Having lost that fight, what makes you think the fighting will continue?
And in the extremely unlikely event it does, then we need to support Ukraine to defend its own territory. But it'll then be purely defensive rather than having to liberate land.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a durable peace with Russia via negotiations. They chose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
A way of ridding these delusions is perhaps by making it hard for them to defend their enormous borders with their rapidly declining population and dwindling military resources. So diverting their attention away from Ukraine by creating other problems that they then have to deal with. Why is it that they just seem to do what they want and everyone runs away scared? Isn't that just reinforcing their delusions?
As has been said before, the easiest way to bring Russia to the negotiating table is for China to sail its fleet or move its troops north. Russia is just too big to defend all its borders at once. Unfortunately, China has no incentive to strengthen Russian defences against China.
There seems to be a new form of cope from the Tory faithful which is that soon SKS will be found out and somehow ending up throwing away a 22 point lead.
But let's look at the reality, SKS has managed since 2019 to out-gun and destroy literally all of his political opponents both inside and out of the party, mostly by playing a very long and tactical game.
These people under-estimate him continuously and I would argue at their peril. They don't seem to want to understand why or how he has done so well, similar to Labour in 2019.
The Tories are in denial.
I think that Starmer has done what he wanted internally, but that hasn't made him very popular amongst the base of Labour activists. And the majority he seems to be looking at seems to be more about the Tories fucking everything up so badly rather than him presenting anything the public actually want.
My concern is that we get a Labour party with a big majority that is essentially Tory-lite, and that the Tories go further to the right and the electorate continue to see a lowering standard of living. That is the ideal scenario for the right wing freaks to really pounce - denounce the old Tory establishment as the captured opposition of progressives, denounce the Labour party as ineffectual lefty elites, and embrace real hard line authoritarian nationalism. That's the choice of socialism or barbarism: an acceptance that the state does have a responsibility and the ability to safeguard peoples lives or the continuation of the cycle of capitalism boom and busts and the eventual rising of demagogues who capitalise on that.
Labour did really well in council elections. That suggests the activist base is doing fine, in the sense of people who go out and work for the party. I see their main weaknesses as Starmer's lack of ability to inspire widespread faith among the electorate, and a bunch of locally divisive activities in London, Scotland, etc. As for the idea that abolishing capitalism and moving to a more North Korean style economy will save society from authoritarianism, the reader can judge the likelihood (though I know some people think abolishing capitalism just means "iPhones, but nicer").
Yes, I very clearly stated how much I wanted to move to a North Korean style economy and culture by suggesting a greater welfare state - those two things are exactly the same...
Again, Labour did okay in council elections - but because the Tories collapsed, not because people were actively seeking Labour policies. LD and Greens combined had a net gain of more councillors than Labour, even if Labour gained more control of councils because of their higher baseline. I don't know what you consider Labour's divisive activities in London, but London is one area where Starmer specifically has seen a big reduction in popularity in the last month - arguably because instead of using the by-election win and close loss as a narrative of Labour ascendancy he used it as further opportunities to bash ULEZ (which has support from a plurality of Londoners and a majority of Londoners from the inner city where Labour are strongest) and a relatively popular London mayor.
I think the parameters are there for a potential agreement on Ukraine. All the important third parties including China are on board, as probably is Ukraine. Russia for the time is not on board.
Firstly, Ukraine's long term security is assured so Russia attempts no further attacks on territory Ukraine holds. No-one trusts Russia to abide by any agreement, so Ukraine's protection needs to be effective. Its long term security is actually more important than winning back any specific territory in the current campaign.
Secondly, Ukraine gets to decide how long it's going to try to win back its own territory now occupied by Russia and how many of its citizens it is prepared to sacrifice in the attempt. It may get pressure to compromise close to the pre 2022 borders, but ultimately this is Ukraine's choice.
Thirdly, Russia has no rights on Ukraine, which will forge its independent path including joining the EU and NATO if it wishes and if membership is offered to it.
The effort now needs to be to pressure Russia to start negotiating with Ukraine a withdrawal from all, or more likely a part, of the occupied territory and at the same time boost Ukraine's long term security.
I don't buy the idea that the Russian Army is invincible and can't be defeated.
I don't either. I'm sure 1st Cav would punch them out of their trainers in short order.
However, AFU, even with their exciting new "kit", don't look remotely capable of inflicting the sort of overwhelming and unequivocal defeat that would end the SMO on favourable terms for Ukraine and result in a stable and lasting settlement. The nugatory progress of die Gegenoffensive testifies to this.
I think we should work backwards from what capability we think is required to defeat the Russian Army and then provide that to Ukraine. This will likely take some time. It took time for the British Army to learn from the bloodbath at the Somme to become the army that could win at Cambrai.
I think Ukraine is making good progress on the path of learning how to fight the Russians and I think that they can finish the job if provided with the support to do so.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
The second Russia stops being pariahs, pulls back to its own territory etc then it can start not being a pariah.
The only thing that will lead to lasting peace is Russia not being led by people who want war. That's up to them, not us.
We need to do that which is within our control which is helping to ensure that Russia lose, not negotiate a lasting peace. A lasting peace means Russia back within its own borders, but Russia don't want that yet - so we need to help make them want that - which means defeating them.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
The poll also suggested that there would be another pro-independence majority after the next Holyrood election, with the SNP winning 57 seats and the Greens ten. Labour would return 38 MSPs to comfortably overtake the Conservatives whose representation at Holyrood would almost halve, to 16 MSPs. The Liberal Democrats would win eight seats under this scenario.
YouGov interviewed 1,086 people aged 16 and older in Scotland between August 3 and 8.
Combined Unionist parties on 62 MSPs however ahead of the SNP on 57 MSPs on that projection and just 5 behind the combined SNP and Greens total. Sarwar now has a net positive rating with Scots unlike Yousaf so at least a chance he will be next FM
Ah, HYUFD arithmetic where a minority of Unionist msps beats a majority of pro Indy msps. Who do you think votes in an FM? Rumours of the death of the SNP greatly exaggerated in any case.
Agree with that. Starmer/Sarwar still struggling to achieve definitive tipping point. The main danger to SNP is civil war breaking out over the alliance with the Greens. That would follow if Nats get hammered at GE but the result still appears open at the moment.
Starmer/Sarwar have had some success in convincing anti EU anti immigration Red wall voters in England and vaguely progressive pro EU voters in Scotland that Labour is the party for them, but the essential contradiction in those positions has to come to a head sooner or later. Pretending to these groups that the other doesn't exist only works for so long.
Seems the SNP have stabilised a little and much will depend on the outcome of the police investigations
As far as Starmer is concerned he remains an English man from London trying to ride two horses at once, with differences over trans gender policies and the 2 children rule between himself and Sawar, and indeed Khan and himself over ULEZ
I note a lot of wishcasting about Keir Starmer by Tory and SNP supporters: a sense that any time soon he's going to be "found out", and people will return to their rightful home.
But this is the sort of thinking that landed Labour in trouble in the mid 2000s, kicked them out of most of Scotland in 2015 and buried the Lib Dems in the South West in the same election. And ejected Labour from swathes of the North and Midlands in 2019. The idea a bloc of voters belongs rightfully to your party. It's the same tendency that could nobble the Tories in the home counties and South Coast next year (fingers crossed) and reverse some of those 2015 SNP gains in Scotland. It leads to supporters ignoring the warning signs and convincing themselves that their voters will come home once they find out the opposition for who they really are.
I'm convinced most of the opposition just assumed that voters would see through Boris' bluster. They probably did, but they voted for him anyway. Same with Keir. It's not that voters are unaware of his or Labour's limitations. They just seem to have concluded it's time for a change.
The difficulty about projecting how well Labour are going to do is that Starmer isn't particularly popular, he is just less unpopular than the alternatives. This means it looks like Labour is on course to win a parliamentary majority, and a big one, but it doesn't say much about how long that majority can be held together and what Starmer will do with it. So far he seems to be flouting policies to the right of Blair - which is not really the platform he was elected to the Labour leadership on. If he runs in a GE as that figure, I could see lots of voters going "back" to the SNP (although less so the Tories). On the other hand, if he tries to paint himself as someone who wants to change things significantly - who wants to fix a "broken Britain" - he might alienate Tory voters who really just want things to go "back to normal" with low interest rates and the like.
I think we could see a very large Labour majority that becomes very unpopular very quickly because it doesn't seem like many voters actively like Starmer's political vision for the UK.
I'm not sure I agree with this either. The voter ratings for Starmer are OK. Not stellar, but not bad at all. That's probably ideal ahead of an election. If expectations were sky high then the risk of rapid disillusionment would be greater. His political vision isn't transformational certainly, it's a bit prosaic. But it's not scary.
Labour's biggest risk after an election is the Conservatives getting their act together. How likely is that? I strongly suspect they have at least one more round of craziness in them before they wake up from their fever dream.
That's my view too. Winning a majority yet with nobody 'inspired' and expecting the earth to move is a political sweet spot for an incoming government and by a mixture of luck and planning it appears that Starmer will land right on it.
I disagree - sure it means fewer people to "let down" but it also means no hopeful populace already behind your mission, no political capital to point at and go "look, the voters put me here to do x, so let's do it". Is anyone truly going to feel they owe Starmer their seat in the same way MPs felt they did to Blair, or even Johnson? I also look at Starmer's team and see nothing but a desire to destroy the left - no coalition building within the party, no actual relationship building with unions or other stakeholder groups. Hell, Sunak gave a bigger pay rise to nurses than Starmer was willing to! We could have more strikes, more inflation and a Labour government to the right of this one on that issue...
I just don't see Starmer being a good PM or his government being popular for long.
All votes count '1' remember, however grudging or passionate. A big majority is a big majority. It's a mandate.
With Starmer I see one thing above all at the moment - a determination to win the election. I don't have a strong sense of how he'll govern (assuming he does win) apart from being more competent and less divisive than we've grown used to in recent times. I think we can at least bank on that and I reckon this in itself will be enough to prevent any short order collapse in popularity.
Of course I hope he does (or at least attempts) some serious transformational things on what imo should be the defining mission of the Labour Party (reducing inequality). It's hard to predict because pre election is different to post election.
The rhetoric atm is cagey and I think the manifesto will be. Nothing will be allowed to jeopardize the win. Same with the neutering of the Left. That's also about securing the win. I don't conclude from it that Starmer has zero sympathy with left wing ideas and won't be influenced by them as PM. But we'll see. We'll know when we know. Better than losing and never knowing.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
The second Russia stops being pariahs, pulls back to its own territory etc then it can start not being a pariah.
The only thing that will lead to lasting peace is Russia not being led by people who want war. That's up to them, not us.
We need to do that which is within our control which is helping to ensure that Russia lose, not negotiate a lasting peace. A lasting peace means Russia back within its own borders, but Russia don't want that yet - so we need to help make them want that - which means defeating them.
I think whilst that is mostly true there needs to be an international attempt at appealing directly to the people of Russia beyond the leadership and making clear that the issues are with the government not them and that a lasting peace and partnership between Russia and the rest of the world is possible. Whilst I think the invasion of Ukraine is unconscionable and Russia need to lose, I do see some of the arguments about NATO expansion as "provoking" Russia to this point as having somewhat of a point. I think that there is a responsibility to work with Russia to transform Russia, not just leave it to its own devices and just hope that leads to good outcomes. I don't think Ukraine should need to make concessions but other powers (like the US) might have to.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
We need to provide a pathway of incentives for them to exhibit better behaviour, so that there's an encouragement for them to come in from the cold. Yes. But we can't provide rewards for good behaviour in the absence of good behaviour.
This GE cycle is starting to be unlike anything we've seen before.
These 20 point leads are stubbornly high.
The 1992 - 1997 parliament would like to have a word with you.
hmmm
does this fit in to one of those not an election to win categories ?
QTWAIN.
That category pretty much doesn't exist in the first place, especially for Oppositions.
Secondly the economic fundamentals going forwards look pretty good. Inflation is coming down, employment is full. Real wage growth should return.
Too little, too late for the Tories, 2024 real wages will be below 2019 real wages, but 2028 is likely to see real wages higher than 2024 wages and a second Labour victory.
This GE cycle is starting to be unlike anything we've seen before.
These 20 point leads are stubbornly high.
Labour were around 20% ahead 18 months before the 1992 election.
OK, I'll bite.
Let's take May 24, Oct 24 and Jan 25 as possible election dates. We are in Aug 23, so 9, 14 and 17 months out respectively.
The equivalent number of months out in the cycle ending Apr 92 would be: Jul 91, Feb 91 and Nov 90 respectively.
Poll averages for these months per Wikipedia:
Jul 91: Lab 42.8, Con 37.5 Feb 91: Con 45.0, Lab 41.2 Nov 90 (Thatcher): Con 35.8, Lab 47.3 Nov 90 (Major): Con 45.8, Lab 39.3 Nov 90 (Whole month): Con 38.8, Lab 44.9
and
Oct 90: Con 33.6, Lab 45.9
The regression tops out briefly, immediately prior to the leader change, at 13 points.
August 23 polls so far: Con 26.0, Lab 45.8
This after all credible leader changes and part of months of sustained poll leads of this order.
Whatever comparison can be made, it's not like for like.
I adore the approach, but you really need a graph...
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
The second Russia stops being pariahs, pulls back to its own territory etc then it can start not being a pariah.
The only thing that will lead to lasting peace is Russia not being led by people who want war. That's up to them, not us.
We need to do that which is within our control which is helping to ensure that Russia lose, not negotiate a lasting peace. A lasting peace means Russia back within its own borders, but Russia don't want that yet - so we need to help make them want that - which means defeating them.
I think whilst that is mostly true there needs to be an international attempt at appealing directly to the people of Russia beyond the leadership and making clear that the issues are with the government not them and that a lasting peace and partnership between Russia and the rest of the world is possible. Whilst I think the invasion of Ukraine is unconscionable and Russia need to lose, I do see some of the arguments about NATO expansion as "provoking" Russia to this point as having somewhat of a point. I think that there is a responsibility to work with Russia to transform Russia, not just leave it to its own devices and just hope that leads to good outcomes. I don't think Ukraine should need to make concessions but other powers (like the US) might have to.
What concessions should other powers make and why?
If Russia don't want to be pariahs, the choice is theirs. We can't make their choices for them.
There is categorically no argument or point about NATO expansion "provoking" Russia, NATO is a defence organisation not an offensive one. Russia needs to be disabused of any notions that they get a say in what happens to their neighbours and to know if every single one of their neighbours want to join NATO then that is their choice and theirs alone.
Had Ukraine joined NATO sooner, this war would never have happened.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
I think the parameters are there for a potential agreement on Ukraine. All the important third parties including China are on board, as probably is Ukraine. Russia for the time is not on board.
Firstly, Ukraine's long term security is assured so Russia attempts no further attacks on territory Ukraine holds. No-one trusts Russia to abide by any agreement, so Ukraine's protection needs to be effective. Its long term security is actually more important than winning back any specific territory in the current campaign.
Secondly, Ukraine gets to decide how long it's going to try to win back its own territory now occupied by Russia and how many of its citizens it is prepared to sacrifice in the attempt. It may get pressure to compromise close to the pre 2022 borders, but ultimately this is Ukraine's choice.
Thirdly, Russia has no rights on Ukraine, which will forge its independent path including joining the EU and NATO if it wishes and if membership is offered to it.
The effort now needs to be to pressure Russia to start negotiating with Ukraine a withdrawal from all, or more likely a part, of the occupied territory and at the same time boost Ukraine's long term security.
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
The poll also suggested that there would be another pro-independence majority after the next Holyrood election, with the SNP winning 57 seats and the Greens ten. Labour would return 38 MSPs to comfortably overtake the Conservatives whose representation at Holyrood would almost halve, to 16 MSPs. The Liberal Democrats would win eight seats under this scenario.
YouGov interviewed 1,086 people aged 16 and older in Scotland between August 3 and 8.
Combined Unionist parties on 62 MSPs however ahead of the SNP on 57 MSPs on that projection and just 5 behind the combined SNP and Greens total. Sarwar now has a net positive rating with Scots unlike Yousaf so at least a chance he will be next FM
Ah, HYUFD arithmetic where a minority of Unionist msps beats a majority of pro Indy msps. Who do you think votes in an FM? Rumours of the death of the SNP greatly exaggerated in any case.
Agree with that. Starmer/Sarwar still struggling to achieve definitive tipping point. The main danger to SNP is civil war breaking out over the alliance with the Greens. That would follow if Nats get hammered at GE but the result still appears open at the moment.
Starmer/Sarwar have had some success in convincing anti EU anti immigration Red wall voters in England and vaguely progressive pro EU voters in Scotland that Labour is the party for them, but the essential contradiction in those positions has to come to a head sooner or later. Pretending to these groups that the other doesn't exist only works for so long.
Seems the SNP have stabilised a little and much will depend on the outcome of the police investigations
As far as Starmer is concerned he remains an English man from London trying to ride two horses at once, with differences over trans gender policies and the 2 children rule between himself and Sawar, and indeed Khan and himself over ULEZ
I note a lot of wishcasting about Keir Starmer by Tory and SNP supporters: a sense that any time soon he's going to be "found out", and people will return to their rightful home.
But this is the sort of thinking that landed Labour in trouble in the mid 2000s, kicked them out of most of Scotland in 2015 and buried the Lib Dems in the South West in the same election. And ejected Labour from swathes of the North and Midlands in 2019. The idea a bloc of voters belongs rightfully to your party. It's the same tendency that could nobble the Tories in the home counties and South Coast next year (fingers crossed) and reverse some of those 2015 SNP gains in Scotland. It leads to supporters ignoring the warning signs and convincing themselves that their voters will come home once they find out the opposition for who they really are.
I'm convinced most of the opposition just assumed that voters would see through Boris' bluster. They probably did, but they voted for him anyway. Same with Keir. It's not that voters are unaware of his or Labour's limitations. They just seem to have concluded it's time for a change.
The difficulty about projecting how well Labour are going to do is that Starmer isn't particularly popular, he is just less unpopular than the alternatives. This means it looks like Labour is on course to win a parliamentary majority, and a big one, but it doesn't say much about how long that majority can be held together and what Starmer will do with it. So far he seems to be flouting policies to the right of Blair - which is not really the platform he was elected to the Labour leadership on. If he runs in a GE as that figure, I could see lots of voters going "back" to the SNP (although less so the Tories). On the other hand, if he tries to paint himself as someone who wants to change things significantly - who wants to fix a "broken Britain" - he might alienate Tory voters who really just want things to go "back to normal" with low interest rates and the like.
I think we could see a very large Labour majority that becomes very unpopular very quickly because it doesn't seem like many voters actively like Starmer's political vision for the UK.
I'm not sure I agree with this either. The voter ratings for Starmer are OK. Not stellar, but not bad at all. That's probably ideal ahead of an election. If expectations were sky high then the risk of rapid disillusionment would be greater. His political vision isn't transformational certainly, it's a bit prosaic. But it's not scary.
Labour's biggest risk after an election is the Conservatives getting their act together. How likely is that? I strongly suspect they have at least one more round of craziness in them before they wake up from their fever dream.
That's my view too. Winning a majority yet with nobody 'inspired' and expecting the earth to move is a political sweet spot for an incoming government and by a mixture of luck and planning it appears that Starmer will land right on it.
I disagree - sure it means fewer people to "let down" but it also means no hopeful populace already behind your mission, no political capital to point at and go "look, the voters put me here to do x, so let's do it". Is anyone truly going to feel they owe Starmer their seat in the same way MPs felt they did to Blair, or even Johnson? I also look at Starmer's team and see nothing but a desire to destroy the left - no coalition building within the party, no actual relationship building with unions or other stakeholder groups. Hell, Sunak gave a bigger pay rise to nurses than Starmer was willing to! We could have more strikes, more inflation and a Labour government to the right of this one on that issue...
I just don't see Starmer being a good PM or his government being popular for long.
All votes count '1' remember, however grudging or passionate. A big majority is a big majority. It's a mandate.
With Starmer I see only one thing at the moment - a determination to win the election. I don't have a strong sense of how he'll govern (assuming he does win) apart from being more competent and less divisive than we've grown used to in recent times. I think we can at least bank on that and I reckon this in itself will be enough to prevent any short order collapse in popularity.
Of course I hope he does (or at least attempts) some serious transformational things on what imo should be the defining mission of the Labour Party (reducing inequality) and we'll have to see if he does. It's hard to predict because pre election is different to post election.
The rhetoric atm is cagey and I think the manifesto will be. Nothing will be allowed to jeopardize the win. Same with the neutering of the Left. That's also about securing the win. I don't conclude from it that Starmer has zero sympathy with left wing ideas and won't be influenced by them as PM.
That's literally true, but politically it isn't. Starmer could get a huge majority, but the political capital of that depends on where MPs and people believe that majority came from. If MPs believe it is just a case that people were tired of the Tories and any Labour leader could have won, then why would they follow Starmer over anyone else? If voters make it clear early on that this was an election where they wanted to remove the Tory government, and not one where they specifically endorse Starmer's government policies (through strike action, protest, or through polling or local elections) then Starmer quickly becomes a lame duck PM.
Winning the election is all well and good - but you can't just want to win for winnings sake. You have to want to do something with the power being in government will bring, and enough people have to believe in that for you to be legitimate. If people only vote for you because they hate the other team more, it is harder to implement your agenda. And if you don't have an agenda you believe in, or your agenda isn't actually that much different from the other team's, then you create issues where the electorate starts spiralling into the "they're all the same, can't trust any of them" cycle.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
Surely, all we need to do is threaten with nuclear weapons, if they won't give us immediate Rejoin?
It's just one of the reasons why the Conservatives are facing a meltdown at the General Election.
I'm currently back to thinking < 100 seats.
Well you would wouldn't you.... Rational thinking about the Tories eludes you, its just a regular daily dose of bile that leads your thinking.
Ha! Pot, kettle etc.
Nope,not at all. I have said the Tories are screwed and deserve to be . 150 seems and would be beyond extraordinary. . I feel sure there will be some sort of swing back towards the Govt. Happy to have a tenner with Heathener that the Tories get more than 150 seats.
I think the parameters are there for a potential agreement on Ukraine. All the important third parties including China are on board, as probably is Ukraine. Russia for the time is not on board.
Firstly, Ukraine's long term security is assured so Russia attempts no further attacks on territory Ukraine holds. No-one trusts Russia to abide by any agreement, so Ukraine's protection needs to be effective. Its long term security is actually more important than winning back any specific territory in the current campaign.
Secondly, Ukraine gets to decide how long it's going to try to win back its own territory now occupied by Russia and how many of its citizens it is prepared to sacrifice in the attempt. It may get pressure to compromise close to the pre 2022 borders, but ultimately this is Ukraine's choice.
Thirdly, Russia has no rights on Ukraine, which will forge its independent path including joining the EU and NATO if it wishes and if membership is offered to it.
The effort now needs to be to pressure Russia to start negotiating with Ukraine a withdrawal from all, or more likely a part, of the occupied territory and at the same time boost Ukraine's long term security.
The problem with some of that is the current Russian regime barely acknowledges the existence of an independent Ukraine. For them, it is 'the Ukraine' - the borderland - not 'Ukraine'. They have already politically claimed vast areas of Ukrainian territory that are not under their control because their army is too weak to take it. Those territories will be their starting point, not the 2022 borders.
Until that mindset genuinely changes - until they believe Ukraine is independent and want to keep it that way - then Russia will always be covertly or openly interfering with Ukraine's affairs.
If it does not change, it does not matter how much territory Russia gets in a peace agreement - they will want more. And importantly, it is not just Ukraine they covet, but the Baltic states as well.
And there's little we can do to change that mindset. Only they can do that. So we have two choices: to defend the independent countries that do not want to be under Russia's thumb, or let Russia take control of them. either politically or by violence.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
We need to provide a pathway of incentives for them to exhibit better behaviour, so that there's an encouragement for them to come in from the cold. Yes. But we can't provide rewards for good behaviour in the absence of good behaviour.
Merkel already tried that approach for many years.
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
But you have the issue that Brexit isn't a disaster so that isn't going to happen.
We have new trade agreements like CPTPP and we are growing faster than Germany. Some "disaster".
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
The Tories will never rejoin, at most they might accept it after a Labour or Labour/LD government had already rejoined the EU although even then would more likely just rejoin EFTA
It's just one of the reasons why the Conservatives are facing a meltdown at the General Election.
I'm currently back to thinking < 100 seats.
Well you would wouldn't you.... Rational thinking about the Tories eludes you, its just a regular daily dose of bile that leads your thinking.
Ha! Pot, kettle etc.
Nope,not at all. I have said the Tories are screwed and deserve to be . 150 seems and would be beyond extraordinary. . I feel sure there will be some sort of swing back towards the Govt. Happy to have a tenner with Heathener that the Tories get more than 150 seats.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
What if the Ukrainians want NATO troops to help?
Oh, they’re helping, and helping lots.
Training, intelligence, logistics, and no doubt a few other things that don’t get discussed.
I think the parameters are there for a potential agreement on Ukraine. All the important third parties including China are on board, as probably is Ukraine. Russia for the time is not on board.
Firstly, Ukraine's long term security is assured so Russia attempts no further attacks on territory Ukraine holds. No-one trusts Russia to abide by any agreement, so Ukraine's protection needs to be effective. Its long term security is actually more important than winning back any specific territory in the current campaign.
Secondly, Ukraine gets to decide how long it's going to try to win back its own territory now occupied by Russia and how many of its citizens it is prepared to sacrifice in the attempt. It may get pressure to compromise close to the pre 2022 borders, but ultimately this is Ukraine's choice.
Thirdly, Russia has no rights on Ukraine, which will forge its independent path including joining the EU and NATO if it wishes and if membership is offered to it.
The effort now needs to be to pressure Russia to start negotiating with Ukraine a withdrawal from all, or more likely a part, of the occupied territory and at the same time boost Ukraine's long term security.
The main point is the first one. I think points 2 and 3 are never going to be acceptable to Russia or its sympathisers. Unfortunately, if Ukraine make no real progress in the next couple of months, the likely 'peace' is something like an unresolved armistice on the current lines - if Russia decide it wants to agree to it.
I think the thing people lose sight of is how, in some ways, Ukraine have already won the war, in that Russia have been beaten back quite heavily last year and, after one year, they have not achieved what they thought they inevitably would.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now.
Defeat looks like pushing them back to their own borders. I couldn't care less what is "enough" for Putin, he needs to lose.
Pushing them back to their own borders won't stop the fighting. It would probably result in a GPW style total mobilisation in the RF. So that's not enough of a defeat. Try again.
Putin has, almost desperately, tried to avoid a mobilisation of ethnic Russians.
Why do you think that is?
It seems the answer is always give them what they want because otherwise they'll escalate. We've done that since 2008 and every time they get what they want, they escalate.
It's like thinking you can appease Trump. You can't appease a sociopath.
Mr. Sandpit, I could be wrong but I think all ICBMs have nuclear warheads because their kinetic energy by itself (with no warhead) exceeds the damage that could be caused by conventional warheads.
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
The Tories will never rejoin, at most they might accept it after a Labour or Labour/LD government had already rejoined the EU although even then would more likely just rejoin EFTA
You cannot bind future Tory parties by proclamation on here, it is quite imaginable we get to a stage where their choice is become rejoiners or go extinct, because that is what the electorate wants. This is a rather obvious thing about being a political party in a democracy.
I think the parameters are there for a potential agreement on Ukraine. All the important third parties including China are on board, as probably is Ukraine. Russia for the time is not on board.
Firstly, Ukraine's long term security is assured so Russia attempts no further attacks on territory Ukraine holds. No-one trusts Russia to abide by any agreement, so Ukraine's protection needs to be effective. Its long term security is actually more important than winning back any specific territory in the current campaign.
Secondly, Ukraine gets to decide how long it's going to try to win back its own territory now occupied by Russia and how many of its citizens it is prepared to sacrifice in the attempt. It may get pressure to compromise close to the pre 2022 borders, but ultimately this is Ukraine's choice.
Thirdly, Russia has no rights on Ukraine, which will forge its independent path including joining the EU and NATO if it wishes and if membership is offered to it.
The effort now needs to be to pressure Russia to start negotiating with Ukraine a withdrawal from all, or more likely a part, of the occupied territory and at the same time boost Ukraine's long term security.
The problem with some of that is the current Russian regime barely acknowledges the existence of an independent Ukraine. For them, it is 'the Ukraine' - the borderland - not 'Ukraine'. They have already politically claimed vast areas of Ukrainian territory that are not under their control because their army is too weak to take it. Those territories will be their starting point, not the 2022 borders.
Until that mindset genuinely changes - until they believe Ukraine is independent and want to keep it that way - then Russia will always be covertly or openly interfering with Ukraine's affairs.
If it does not change, it does not matter how much territory Russia gets in a peace agreement - they will want more. And importantly, it is not just Ukraine they covet, but the Baltic states as well.
And there's little we can do to change that mindset. Only they can do that. So we have two choices: to defend the independent countries that do not want to be under Russia's thumb, or let Russia take control of them. either politically or by violence.
If Ukraine doesn't break through Russian defences (still possible but getting more unlikely), Ukraine still has a very good chance of imposing a cost on Russia for its occupation that even Russia is not prepared to pay. Not great for Ukraine, but it is its choice to keep the war going and I don't see any reason for them to stop short of outright defeat or a negotiated agreement with Russia.
We should support Ukraine for as long as it is prepared to keep going.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
What if the Ukrainians want NATO troops to help?
Oh, they’re helping, and helping lots.
Training, intelligence, logistics, and no doubt a few other things that don’t get discussed.
Sure but Sofa Sergeant-Major @BartholomewRoberts thinks we should give Ukraine “anything they ask for” and I’m curious as to whether this includes actual NATO troops
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
The second Russia stops being pariahs, pulls back to its own territory etc then it can start not being a pariah.
The only thing that will lead to lasting peace is Russia not being led by people who want war. That's up to them, not us.
We need to do that which is within our control which is helping to ensure that Russia lose, not negotiate a lasting peace. A lasting peace means Russia back within its own borders, but Russia don't want that yet - so we need to help make them want that - which means defeating them.
I think whilst that is mostly true there needs to be an international attempt at appealing directly to the people of Russia beyond the leadership and making clear that the issues are with the government not them and that a lasting peace and partnership between Russia and the rest of the world is possible. Whilst I think the invasion of Ukraine is unconscionable and Russia need to lose, I do see some of the arguments about NATO expansion as "provoking" Russia to this point as having somewhat of a point. I think that there is a responsibility to work with Russia to transform Russia, not just leave it to its own devices and just hope that leads to good outcomes. I don't think Ukraine should need to make concessions but other powers (like the US) might have to.
What concessions should other powers make and why?
If Russia don't want to be pariahs, the choice is theirs. We can't make their choices for them.
There is categorically no argument or point about NATO expansion "provoking" Russia, NATO is a defence organisation not an offensive one. Russia needs to be disabused of any notions that they get a say in what happens to their neighbours and to know if every single one of their neighbours want to join NATO then that is their choice and theirs alone.
Had Ukraine joined NATO sooner, this war would never have happened.
Other powers don't act that way - every country gets at least a say in what happens to their neighbours and many powers still use soft and hard power to enforce that. That Russia has been allowed to believe their only route to influence things is via direct hard power and not diplomacy or soft power is in part a failure of others willingness to work with Russia.
NATO is not just a defensive coalition, it's an acceptance of certain international cultural and economic hegemonies that at the end of the day most benefit the soft and hard power of the United States. If Russia or China wanted to build a similar coalition against the USA then there would be legitimate screeches of bloody murder, that any such move would suggest these powers are actively planning against the USA and should be treated thusly.
The continuation of NATO after the Cold War was a statement that the US had "won" and it had no intention of working with a post Cold War Russia after the fact. So no wonder Russia evolved into still being antagonistic to Europe and the USA. Again, I do not think that means the invasion of Ukraine or ceding any part of Ukraine to Russia is acceptable. But the chain of events that brought Russia to make this decision were not Russia's choices alone.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
The second Russia stops being pariahs, pulls back to its own territory etc then it can start not being a pariah.
The only thing that will lead to lasting peace is Russia not being led by people who want war. That's up to them, not us.
We need to do that which is within our control which is helping to ensure that Russia lose, not negotiate a lasting peace. A lasting peace means Russia back within its own borders, but Russia don't want that yet - so we need to help make them want that - which means defeating them.
I think whilst that is mostly true there needs to be an international attempt at appealing directly to the people of Russia beyond the leadership and making clear that the issues are with the government not them and that a lasting peace and partnership between Russia and the rest of the world is possible. Whilst I think the invasion of Ukraine is unconscionable and Russia need to lose, I do see some of the arguments about NATO expansion as "provoking" Russia to this point as having somewhat of a point. I think that there is a responsibility to work with Russia to transform Russia, not just leave it to its own devices and just hope that leads to good outcomes. I don't think Ukraine should need to make concessions but other powers (like the US) might have to.
What concessions should other powers make and why?
If Russia don't want to be pariahs, the choice is theirs. We can't make their choices for them.
There is categorically no argument or point about NATO expansion "provoking" Russia, NATO is a defence organisation not an offensive one. Russia needs to be disabused of any notions that they get a say in what happens to their neighbours and to know if every single one of their neighbours want to join NATO then that is their choice and theirs alone.
Had Ukraine joined NATO sooner, this war would never have happened.
Which NATO member was being defended when Serbia was bombed to smithereens? A war which arguably led to the rise of hard men like Putin when Russia could not defend its fellow Slavs.
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
The Tories will never rejoin, at most they might accept it after a Labour or Labour/LD government had already rejoined the EU although even then would more likely just rejoin EFTA
You cannot bind future Tory parties by proclamation on here, it is quite imaginable we get to a stage where their choice is become rejoiners or go extinct, because that is what the electorate wants. This is a rather obvious thing about being a political party in a democracy.
No, the choice would be between become a 9% Rejoin party ie what May's Tories got in the 2019 European elections having failed to deliver Brexit or a 37% party potentially as are the number who still back Brexit.
Only Labour and the LDs would ever take the UK back into the EU, the Tory voter coalition would never allow it and would defect en masse to Farage and ReformUK if it did
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
We need to provide a pathway of incentives for them to exhibit better behaviour, so that there's an encouragement for them to come in from the cold. Yes. But we can't provide rewards for good behaviour in the absence of good behaviour.
Merkel already tried that approach for many years.
And that failed, I agree. Which says to me that such an approach needs to be done by more than just one country, even if it is arguably the strongest country in Europe.
I think there's a delusion running through your posts on this issue that the West is in control and can choose the outcome it wants (and therefore we should choose the option with zero deaths which means stopping the fighting now).
It's important to remember that this is happening because of the choice by Putin and Russia to invade, and we are reacting to that choice. We can't force Russia to be a reasonable and trustworthy counterparty in negotiations by finding a magic form of words, or a perfect compromise.
We have to accept the reality that their invasion showed us. They do not share our view of a world run by rules, agreements, negotiations and peaceful coexistence. They have a view of the world based on power, domination, imperialism and unilateral action. They are imposing that world view on the people of Ukraine and we either do all we can to resist that, or the future for the world is a much darker place.
You're of course right that we can't control the situation and decide the outcome - if we could, then simply saying "We decree that Russia is removed" would be the best option. But we're not powerless either. We are encouraging Ukraine to think that we will keep escalating with more and more sophisticated weaponry and that somehow that will enable them to win outright.
There are two snags in that. First, it's not clear that an outright win is a realistic prospect, and years of war will certainly lead to further massive deaths on both sides - we shouldn't be complicit in that unless we think it will work. Second, we are encouraging them to count on us indefinitely. All big powers have a history of supporting locally favoured governments (and factions) until we get fed up, and we do nearly always get fed up in the end, if only because a new government takes a different view (Trump is the obvious risk, but probably not the only one). We should IMO combine continued support with a realistic private assessment that they shouldn't assume that it will continue forever, and if they do show willingness to negotiate we will step up support to improve their negotiating position. It's not that different to our current policy, but the nuance is important.
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
But you have the issue that Brexit isn't a disaster so that isn't going to happen.
We have new trade agreements like CPTPP and we are growing faster than Germany. Some "disaster".
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
We need to provide a pathway of incentives for them to exhibit better behaviour, so that there's an encouragement for them to come in from the cold. Yes. But we can't provide rewards for good behaviour in the absence of good behaviour.
Merkel already tried that approach for many years.
Merkel was rewarding them even without good behaviour.
Merkel could and should have said that there would be no Nordstream unless or until Russia withdrew back to its own borders, leaving the bits of the Donbass it was occupying and Crimea.
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
The Tories will never rejoin, at most they might accept it after a Labour or Labour/LD government had already rejoined the EU although even then would more likely just rejoin EFTA
They will if they think it's in their advantage to, if staying out has proved to be sufficiently bad to make them change their minds. They will then go through one of their cynical re-invention phases and pretend they are different to before.
Don't forget in 1983 the Tories were staunchly pro-EC, and Labour in favour of leaving, so things change.
None of the political culture (politicians, media, activists etc.) want to relitigate the EU (partly because solving other things is just as if not more important, partly because it is still a highly emotive topic for many). Labour has no desire to give the Tories a stick to beat them with, the LDs are not important enough and, most importantly, we don't know the terms we would be offered to rejoin. If I were an EU member state I would not allow the UK to rejoin with the exceptions we already had carved out back during the Cameron era. Not out of spite, but because it seems clear to me now that our exceptional status within the EU was part of what led us out - that we could not be appeased because at the end of the day the UK did not enter the project wanting it to succeed, and rather was accepted so it was on the inside pissing out rather than the other way around. For the UK to rejoin the EU would require both the UK and EU to say up front and clearly what kind of political entity they want the EU to be, and for the UK to clearly and affirmatively say we want to be part of that entity - not just a desire for us to get an economic boost for trade reasons (which we could do without rejoining).
If the EU project is that of differing states eventually evolving into a more federalist super state model, similar to the US or even the Russian Federation, the UKs "reentry" would be the perfect moment to make that clear. I know not all individual member states like that idea, nor do all voters within the individual states, but with a single currency and talks of increased security collaboration alongside increased collaboration likely necessary to deal with climate change and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and an increasingly unstable US, it would be beneficial to put all the cards on the table. And if the UK doesn't want to be part of that - fine. But if we do, we need to know at that point what rejoin means.
I don't think the EU really wants to have that conversation, and I don't think the UK would sign up for that - so I doubt anyone will push rejoin for a long time yet. I think the outcome of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the next decade of US political leadership will likely force the EU to react and therefore become more like a federalised state, rather than an open debate about whether that is what the individual countries want. So I don't see rejoin becoming a significant movement for at least a decade, if not longer, and by then it will be greatly overshadowed by the politics of climate catastrophe.
I think that a Federal EU can only emerge based on the Eurozone, and so it would deepen the split between the Eurozone countries and the non-Eurozone countries, likely making it permanent (and anyway, neither France or Germany want a Federal Europe for different reasons anyway). I think at the moment the EU would prefer to preserve the fiction that this divide between the Eurozone and the rest is temporary, rather than entrench it.
We see with the way the EU has handled Hungary over Ukraine that it is currently favouring the preservation of unanimity, rather than proceeding with a more determined core (even when they core is all the states bar one).
I don't disagree that there is not a huge push atm for an actual federalised EU, I just think events will make it so. Russia's aggression presents a question - what should Europe's relationship with Russia look like? Will Russia even continue to be an entity if it loses? What happens if Russia wins? These questions will require greater links between EU states - no longer can Germany seek out it's own oil and gas deal with Russia in such a world. And if Russia falls apart, which is unlikely but not impossible, what happens to the leftovers?
I think the same will be true of the US. If Trump wins next year, the EU can expect another mini trade war and an erratic ally at best and an outright hostile US at worst. If Trump doesn't win, a DeSantis or Cruz will still have a shot in 28 or 32 - again people who will not likely put US/EU cooperation highly on their list of priorities. The US also looks like it might fragment over the next decade - abortion, LGBT+ rights, wealth inequality, labour strikes, not to mention the impacts of climate change on farming and food distribution between states. And there are no real politicians capable of unifying the country, nor doing so in a way that benefits its allies. Already the IRA, which is doing a lot to boost the USAs infrastructure and growth, is having a negative impact on other smaller countries (like the UK) by raising the prices of materials needed for infrastructure and green transition. The EU would be better doing this as a whole rather than as individual states - saving money by bulk purchasing, sharing expertise and labour and subsidising infrastructure for the poorer states. That will also require a lot more collaboration that would start looking more like a real federal state.
Personal view - with all its caveats etc - is that there will be a move to a federal Europe but the driver will be the increasing number of governments in Europe that will have a populist right agenda, or at least strongly influenced by it. If you look at Europe over the next five years - it is likely we will see France (under Le Pen), Italy, much of Central and Eastern Europe, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria etc that will have such movements as part of their governments. The AfD could also boost their share in Germany. Polling in Ireland shows strong support for a Dutch-style farmers party. If Ukraine gets in (which I don't think it will but...), then that will only increase that tilt.
If it heads in that way, then there are likely to be a number of areas where the Bloc would make substantial unifying progress simply because each country will recognise it cannot do things on its own and there is strength through numbers. However, it will be areas such as border protection, armed forces, protectionism, policies to encourage childbirth etc that will see the biggest integration. I suspect though that these will not be the measures that many pro-EU advocates have in mind when they talk about the greater integration of the EU.
British rejoiners, who tend to be of the liberal-left idealist internationalist type, might find themselves advocating to join a hard-right Fortress Europe, which would be interesting.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
What if the Ukrainians want NATO troops to help?
Oh, they’re helping, and helping lots.
Training, intelligence, logistics, and no doubt a few other things that don’t get discussed.
I'm curious as to how many resources are going towards holding the northern border against Belarus, given that's where part of the initial invasion came from.
I wonder if Poland etc would consider a security guarantee for everything west of Kyiv. Too aggro?
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
The second Russia stops being pariahs, pulls back to its own territory etc then it can start not being a pariah.
The only thing that will lead to lasting peace is Russia not being led by people who want war. That's up to them, not us.
We need to do that which is within our control which is helping to ensure that Russia lose, not negotiate a lasting peace. A lasting peace means Russia back within its own borders, but Russia don't want that yet - so we need to help make them want that - which means defeating them.
I think whilst that is mostly true there needs to be an international attempt at appealing directly to the people of Russia beyond the leadership and making clear that the issues are with the government not them and that a lasting peace and partnership between Russia and the rest of the world is possible. Whilst I think the invasion of Ukraine is unconscionable and Russia need to lose, I do see some of the arguments about NATO expansion as "provoking" Russia to this point as having somewhat of a point. I think that there is a responsibility to work with Russia to transform Russia, not just leave it to its own devices and just hope that leads to good outcomes. I don't think Ukraine should need to make concessions but other powers (like the US) might have to.
What concessions should other powers make and why?
If Russia don't want to be pariahs, the choice is theirs. We can't make their choices for them.
There is categorically no argument or point about NATO expansion "provoking" Russia, NATO is a defence organisation not an offensive one. Russia needs to be disabused of any notions that they get a say in what happens to their neighbours and to know if every single one of their neighbours want to join NATO then that is their choice and theirs alone.
Had Ukraine joined NATO sooner, this war would never have happened.
Which NATO member was being defended when Serbia was bombed to smithereens? A war which arguably led to the rise of hard men like Putin when Russia could not defend its fellow Slavs.
Kosovans were being defended and it was the right thing to do. 👍
Now Kosovo is free from from Serbian oppression, and its a total rewriting of history to say that Serbia was bombed to smithereens, or that it led to Putin.
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
But you have the issue that Brexit isn't a disaster so that isn't going to happen.
We have new trade agreements like CPTPP and we are growing faster than Germany. Some "disaster".
In that case, we won't rejoin, and why would we?
Well the people seeking to rejoin aren't doing so because of economics, but because of politics.
If they win the argument politically, then we can rejoin and that would be democratic.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
The second Russia stops being pariahs, pulls back to its own territory etc then it can start not being a pariah.
The only thing that will lead to lasting peace is Russia not being led by people who want war. That's up to them, not us.
We need to do that which is within our control which is helping to ensure that Russia lose, not negotiate a lasting peace. A lasting peace means Russia back within its own borders, but Russia don't want that yet - so we need to help make them want that - which means defeating them.
I think whilst that is mostly true there needs to be an international attempt at appealing directly to the people of Russia beyond the leadership and making clear that the issues are with the government not them and that a lasting peace and partnership between Russia and the rest of the world is possible. Whilst I think the invasion of Ukraine is unconscionable and Russia need to lose, I do see some of the arguments about NATO expansion as "provoking" Russia to this point as having somewhat of a point. I think that there is a responsibility to work with Russia to transform Russia, not just leave it to its own devices and just hope that leads to good outcomes. I don't think Ukraine should need to make concessions but other powers (like the US) might have to.
What concessions should other powers make and why?
If Russia don't want to be pariahs, the choice is theirs. We can't make their choices for them.
There is categorically no argument or point about NATO expansion "provoking" Russia, NATO is a defence organisation not an offensive one. Russia needs to be disabused of any notions that they get a say in what happens to their neighbours and to know if every single one of their neighbours want to join NATO then that is their choice and theirs alone.
Had Ukraine joined NATO sooner, this war would never have happened.
Other powers don't act that way - every country gets at least a say in what happens to their neighbours and many powers still use soft and hard power to enforce that. That Russia has been allowed to believe their only route to influence things is via direct hard power and not diplomacy or soft power is in part a failure of others willingness to work with Russia.
NATO is not just a defensive coalition, it's an acceptance of certain international cultural and economic hegemonies that at the end of the day most benefit the soft and hard power of the United States. If Russia or China wanted to build a similar coalition against the USA then there would be legitimate screeches of bloody murder, that any such move would suggest these powers are actively planning against the USA and should be treated thusly.
The continuation of NATO after the Cold War was a statement that the US had "won" and it had no intention of working with a post Cold War Russia after the fact. So no wonder Russia evolved into still being antagonistic to Europe and the USA. Again, I do not think that means the invasion of Ukraine or ceding any part of Ukraine to Russia is acceptable. But the chain of events that brought Russia to make this decision were not Russia's choices alone.
Russia is like Sparta. Its leaders have no concept of soft power. It has no strategy for dealing with its neighbours other than threats and bribes.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
"How do you defeat them" - by defeating them.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
Giving Putin a win doesn't end the war. It teaches him and the other Russian imperialists that the West is weak and will cede territory when pushed. So they will come again. And again.
We have to work out what we need to do to help Ukraine defeat the Russian military and then do it, rather than wringing our hands over how difficult it is. That's the best achievable option.
I don't buy the idea that the Russian Army is invincible and can't be defeated.
A political collapse of the Russian army/regime is possible.
I'm not sure Ukraine can win a war of attrition with Russia but that will only last as long as the politics supports it and Ukrainian staying power should be stronger.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
We need to provide a pathway of incentives for them to exhibit better behaviour, so that there's an encouragement for them to come in from the cold. Yes. But we can't provide rewards for good behaviour in the absence of good behaviour.
Merkel already tried that approach for many years.
Merkel was rewarding them even without good behaviour.
Merkel could and should have said that there would be no Nordstream unless or until Russia withdrew back to its own borders, leaving the bits of the Donbass it was occupying and Crimea.
Given her DDR past I often wonder if Merkel will be revealed as an agent of Mordor some time in the future.
Putting the rights and wrongs of Brexit aside, what does astonish me is the absolute pig's ear Kippers/Brexit Tories have made of its implementation and subsequent sell. You'd have thought they could have cobbled together a couple of odds and ends and vaguely marketed them (no matter how spuriously) as some kind of Brexit dividend. But no one has bothered putting a shine on it whatsoever. I suppose the one exception is Rishi and his post-EU 'alcohol-pricing reforms', but they seemed to vanish as soon as they appeared. Why does no one give a stuff?
Comments
👀 About 850 kilograms of explosives!
https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1691713922712142280?s=20
If Russia tries it again in a few decades, they need to lose again. That would be a solution to then.
If Russia loses and balkanises, that would be fantastic. A dissolution of the Muscovite Empire and breakdown of Russia into smaller parts that are free from the tyranny of Moscow would be a progressive step for the people liberated from Moscow's tyranny.
People from Macedonia, Croatia, Slovenia etc now are much better off not being oppressed by Serbia. Its a tragedy that it took violence to liberate some of them, but not a tragedy that they are free now.
If they have so little to offer, why does everyone keep invading them?
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
The Syrian civil war is still ongoing, albeit with no shifts in any fronts for three years. The longer this war goes on the slower the front shifts are going to be - and with the GOP being largely Ukraine sceptical & european polling showing lukewarmness on the war I think long term Putin just has to wait it out to basically de facto claim most of the current Ukrainian territory Russia holds quite honestly.
That is enough of a defeat.
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
However, AFU, even with their exciting new "kit", don't look remotely capable of inflicting the sort of overwhelming and unequivocal defeat that would end the SMO on favourable terms for Ukraine and result in a stable and lasting settlement. The nugatory progress of die Gegenoffensive testifies to this.
There was a referendum when the Soviet Union broke up, and they *all* voted to join Ukraine.
Such an offer encourages Putin to continue with his war by creating an expectation that NATO countries may cave in.
We shouldn't care who runs Russia after Putin today, because its unknowable. Its not in our control. Unless we're going to march on Moscow and install a leader of our choosing (hint: we won't) then its not something we get a say in, so there's no point us worrying about it yet.
Once we know who runs Russia after Putin we can worry about that then, but right now we have bigger fish to fry.
As for your claim that because war is difficult we should encourage a negotiated settlement - no, just no. More years of slaughtering Russian occupiers is absolutely the right solution for as long as Ukraine is willing and able to fight to liberate its own territory. The way to de-escalate the war is to kick Russia out of Ukraine, there is no alternative.
The LDs did much better than Labour in May's local elections where they got 20% NEV
Note that they have enclosed the Starlink antenna in a fairing.
It's important to remember that this is happening because of the choice by Putin and Russia to invade, and we are reacting to that choice. We can't force Russia to be a reasonable and trustworthy counterparty in negotiations by finding a magic form of words, or a perfect compromise.
We have to accept the reality that their invasion showed us. They do not share our view of a world run by rules, agreements, negotiations and peaceful coexistence. They have a view of the world based on power, domination, imperialism and unilateral action. They are imposing that world view on the people of Ukraine and we either do all we can to resist that, or the future for the world is a much darker place.
However Afghan invasions normally end in disaster as it is mountainous and near impossible to occupy successfully and securely and in 2001 Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan anyway.
As Macmillan famously reported told Home when he succeeded him as PM 'Don't invade Afghanistan dear boy and you should be alright'
Ukraine won't be fighting to liberate any more territory, so that element of fighting ends.
And having been defeated, why would Russia seek to re-invade? They'll have lost.
So that means the war will be over.
Its not like America is seeking to re-invade Afghanistan right now is it?
If it takes time, it takes time. And if Russia need to be defeated again in the future, they need to be defeated again in the future. But defending and supporting our allies and ensuring the liberation of all occupied territory is unequivocally the right thing to do.
So why isn't the UK willy waving with nukes a valid option? Or is it only countries that are Sociopathic Toddlers (Russia) that are allowed to do that?
Putin, or at least those around him, knows that the actual use of a nuclear weapon will guarantee a robust response from other nuclear powers. If he’s lucky, it will be a large but conventional response of ICMBs towards military targets in Russia.
Let's take May 24, Oct 24 and Jan 25 as possible election dates. We are in Aug 23, so 9, 14 and 17 months out respectively.
The equivalent number of months out in the cycle ending Apr 92 would be: Jul 91, Feb 91 and Nov 90 respectively.
Poll averages for these months per Wikipedia:
Jul 91: Lab 42.8, Con 37.5
Feb 91: Con 45.0, Lab 41.2
Nov 90 (Thatcher): Con 35.8, Lab 47.3
Nov 90 (Major): Con 45.8, Lab 39.3
Nov 90 (Whole month): Con 38.8, Lab 44.9
and
Oct 90: Con 33.6, Lab 45.9
The regression tops out briefly, immediately prior to the leader change, at 13 points.
August 23 polls so far: Con 26.0, Lab 45.8
This after all credible leader changes and part of months of sustained poll leads of this order.
Whatever comparison can be made, it's not like for like.
After all they changed their minds in 2014 and 2022.
Such a "peace" will make one thing utterly inevitable. A strange sunrise in the Black Sea - as Ukraine tests a nuclear weapon.
If they're pushed back to their own borders then that means they've lost that fight. Having lost that fight, what makes you think the fighting will continue?
And in the extremely unlikely event it does, then we need to support Ukraine to defend its own territory. But it'll then be purely defensive rather than having to liberate land.
Again, Labour did okay in council elections - but because the Tories collapsed, not because people were actively seeking Labour policies. LD and Greens combined had a net gain of more councillors than Labour, even if Labour gained more control of councils because of their higher baseline. I don't know what you consider Labour's divisive activities in London, but London is one area where Starmer specifically has seen a big reduction in popularity in the last month - arguably because instead of using the by-election win and close loss as a narrative of Labour ascendancy he used it as further opportunities to bash ULEZ (which has support from a plurality of Londoners and a majority of Londoners from the inner city where Labour are strongest) and a relatively popular London mayor.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating?crossBreak=london
Firstly, Ukraine's long term security is assured so Russia attempts no further attacks on territory Ukraine holds. No-one trusts Russia to abide by any agreement, so Ukraine's protection needs to be effective. Its long term security is actually more important than winning back any specific territory in the current campaign.
Secondly, Ukraine gets to decide how long it's going to try to win back its own territory now occupied by Russia and how many of its citizens it is prepared to sacrifice in the attempt. It may get pressure to compromise close to the pre 2022 borders, but ultimately this is Ukraine's choice.
Thirdly, Russia has no rights on Ukraine, which will forge its independent path including joining the EU and NATO if it wishes and if membership is offered to it.
The effort now needs to be to pressure Russia to start negotiating with Ukraine a withdrawal from all, or more likely a part, of the occupied territory and at the same time boost Ukraine's long term security.
I think Ukraine is making good progress on the path of learning how to fight the Russians and I think that they can finish the job if provided with the support to do so.
The only thing that will lead to lasting peace is Russia not being led by people who want war. That's up to them, not us.
We need to do that which is within our control which is helping to ensure that Russia lose, not negotiate a lasting peace. A lasting peace means Russia back within its own borders, but Russia don't want that yet - so we need to help make them want that - which means defeating them.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
does this fit in to one of those not an election to win categories ?
See Caesar in the Gallic Wars. If you repeatedly run "rm -rf *.rebellious" then eventually you you have no problem.
With Starmer I see one thing above all at the moment - a determination to win the election. I don't have a strong sense of how he'll govern (assuming he does win) apart from being more competent and less divisive than we've grown used to in recent times. I think we can at least bank on that and I reckon this in itself will be enough to prevent any short order collapse in popularity.
Of course I hope he does (or at least attempts) some serious transformational things on what imo should be the defining mission of the Labour Party (reducing inequality). It's hard to predict because pre election is different to post election.
The rhetoric atm is cagey and I think the manifesto will be. Nothing will be allowed to jeopardize the win. Same with the neutering of the Left. That's also about securing the win. I don't conclude from it that Starmer has zero sympathy with left wing ideas and won't be influenced by them as PM. But we'll see. We'll know when we know. Better than losing and never knowing.
That category pretty much doesn't exist in the first place, especially for Oppositions.
Secondly the economic fundamentals going forwards look pretty good. Inflation is coming down, employment is full. Real wage growth should return.
Too little, too late for the Tories, 2024 real wages will be below 2019 real wages, but 2028 is likely to see real wages higher than 2024 wages and a second Labour victory.
These work.
If Russia don't want to be pariahs, the choice is theirs. We can't make their choices for them.
There is categorically no argument or point about NATO expansion "provoking" Russia, NATO is a defence organisation not an offensive one. Russia needs to be disabused of any notions that they get a say in what happens to their neighbours and to know if every single one of their neighbours want to join NATO then that is their choice and theirs alone.
Had Ukraine joined NATO sooner, this war would never have happened.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
Winning the election is all well and good - but you can't just want to win for winnings sake. You have to want to do something with the power being in government will bring, and enough people have to believe in that for you to be legitimate. If people only vote for you because they hate the other team more, it is harder to implement your agenda. And if you don't have an agenda you believe in, or your agenda isn't actually that much different from the other team's, then you create issues where the electorate starts spiralling into the "they're all the same, can't trust any of them" cycle.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
Until that mindset genuinely changes - until they believe Ukraine is independent and want to keep it that way - then Russia will always be covertly or openly interfering with Ukraine's affairs.
If it does not change, it does not matter how much territory Russia gets in a peace agreement - they will want more. And importantly, it is not just Ukraine they covet, but the Baltic states as well.
And there's little we can do to change that mindset. Only they can do that. So we have two choices: to defend the independent countries that do not want to be under Russia's thumb, or let Russia take control of them. either politically or by violence.
We have new trade agreements like CPTPP and we are growing faster than Germany. Some "disaster".
Training, intelligence, logistics, and no doubt a few other things that don’t get discussed.
I think the thing people lose sight of is how, in some ways, Ukraine have already won the war, in that Russia have been beaten back quite heavily last year and, after one year, they have not achieved what they thought they inevitably would.
It's like thinking you can appease Trump. You can't appease a sociopath.
We should support Ukraine for as long as it is prepared to keep going.
Ukraine “anything they ask for” and I’m curious as to whether this includes actual NATO troops
NATO is not just a defensive coalition, it's an acceptance of certain international cultural and economic hegemonies that at the end of the day most benefit the soft and hard power of the United States. If Russia or China wanted to build a similar coalition against the USA then there would be legitimate screeches of bloody murder, that any such move would suggest these powers are actively planning against the USA and should be treated thusly.
The continuation of NATO after the Cold War was a statement that the US had "won" and it had no intention of working with a post Cold War Russia after the fact. So no wonder Russia evolved into still being antagonistic to Europe and the USA. Again, I do not think that means the invasion of Ukraine or ceding any part of Ukraine to Russia is acceptable. But the chain of events that brought Russia to make this decision were not Russia's choices alone.
Only Labour and the LDs would ever take the UK back into the EU, the Tory voter coalition would never allow it and would defect en masse to Farage and ReformUK if it did
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
There are two snags in that. First, it's not clear that an outright win is a realistic prospect, and years of war will certainly lead to further massive deaths on both sides - we shouldn't be complicit in that unless we think it will work. Second, we are encouraging them to count on us indefinitely. All big powers have a history of supporting locally favoured governments (and factions) until we get fed up, and we do nearly always get fed up in the end, if only because a new government takes a different view (Trump is the obvious risk, but probably not the only one). We should IMO combine continued support with a realistic private assessment that they shouldn't assume that it will continue forever, and if they do show willingness to negotiate we will step up support to improve their negotiating position. It's not that different to our current policy, but the nuance is important.
Merkel could and should have said that there would be no Nordstream unless or until Russia withdrew back to its own borders, leaving the bits of the Donbass it was occupying and Crimea.
Don't forget in 1983 the Tories were staunchly pro-EC, and Labour in favour of leaving, so things change.
I wonder if Poland etc would consider a security guarantee for everything west of Kyiv. Too aggro?
Now Kosovo is free from from Serbian oppression, and its a total rewriting of history to say that Serbia was bombed to smithereens, or that it led to Putin.
https://www.si.com/fannation/mma/news/facebook-founder-mark-zuckerberg-wins-gold-and-silver-in-first-jiu-jitsu-competition
If they win the argument politically, then we can rejoin and that would be democratic.
I doubt it will happen though.
I'm not sure Ukraine can win a war of attrition with Russia but that will only last as long as the politics supports it and Ukrainian staying power should be stronger.