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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
I just think there is an unwillingness to accept nuance in geopolitical situations.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
You could - and certainly the US is less than spotless in its foreign policy.
But I think it takes a degree of perversity to blame the US for the current Russian invasion. That is solely their responsibility.
As for the progress in the war, the Ukranian advances in Zaphorzhzhia (sp?) are currently running at about five miles a month, which will enable them to reach the coast in mid 2024 or earlier if they speed up past the minefields. Their only danger is the unremarked Russian advances in/around the Kharkiv oblast, which at the same rate will enable them to retake Izium. The Ukrainian problem is not the counterattack, as they are willing to expend the men and materiel to do it (this war is a process of converting men and machines into land). It's what the Russians are doing elsewhere.
The last thing you would expect in an offensive is a linear rate of progress. I would think the most likely possibilities are:
1. Initial rapid advances slowing down over time as reserves are exhausted, logistic lines stretched and defences bolstered.
2. Slow initial advances that accelerate once the defensive reserves are exhausted or a key defensive line is broken.
3. Essentially little or no movement in the grand scheme of things.
We don't know whether (2) or (3) applies yet. I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that Ukraine may cause enough attrition to the Russian defence that we will see (2) before winter.
Your analysis is all straight lines. That's not how this war has gone.
There's a word for reducing complex qualitative situations to simple quantitative measurements that can be understood by everyday people. That word is "statistics".
As for your analysis, I agree with it, but your three points reduce to "1: slow down", "2: speed up", or "3: stop". I hope that 2 will happen in the future, but I can only tell you about the present.
I guess the point about 2 is that we can see it is a possibility because we can see the attrition that makes it possible.
There is more information available to us than the area of control maps.
As for the progress in the war, the Ukranian advances in Zaphorzhzhia (sp?) are currently running at about five miles a month, which will enable them to reach the coast in mid 2024 or earlier if they speed up past the minefields. Their only danger is the unremarked Russian advances in/around the Kharkiv oblast, which at the same rate will enable them to retake Izium. The Ukrainian problem is not the counterattack, as they are willing to expend the men and materiel to do it (this war is a process of converting men and machines into land). It's what the Russians are doing elsewhere.
The last thing you would expect in an offensive is a linear rate of progress. I would think the most likely possibilities are:
1. Initial rapid advances slowing down over time as reserves are exhausted, logistic lines stretched and defences bolstered.
2. Slow initial advances that accelerate once the defensive reserves are exhausted or a key defensive line is broken.
3. Essentially little or no movement in the grand scheme of things.
We don't know whether (2) or (3) applies yet. I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that Ukraine may cause enough attrition to the Russian defence that we will see (2) before winter.
Your analysis is all straight lines. That's not how this war has gone.
There's a word for reducing complex qualitative situations to simple quantitative measurements that can be understood by everyday people. That word is "statistics".
As for your analysis, I agree with it, but your three points reduce to "1: slow down", "2: speed up", or "3: stop". I hope that 2 will happen in the future, but I can only tell you about the present.
As a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, I object to statistics being described as something “that can be understood by everyday people”.
“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
And Zuckerberg is actively training and has actively done this kind of fighting for a while now, and Musk... hasn't. I'm 6ft 5 and close to 100kg - I have a friend who is just under 6ft and closer to something like 80kg, but they do kickboxing twice a week. Are we saying I'd be favourite in a "cage match" against them?
Weird. By default I picture PBers as tall and thin, but I read your name as gross so had you down as short and fat.
I am tall and people say I'm thin, but don't consider myself thin (when I was in my early 20s I was this height but like 12 stone, so that's what I consider thin).
6'5 and 12 stone is very thin indeed.
Yeah, those were the days - eat anything I wanted and the metabolism just burnt it right up. Mid 20s that all changed. Aging isn't for wimps, as they say.
I was the same (though considerably less tall) until around 30. All downhill since 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.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
I just think there is an unwillingness to accept nuance in geopolitical situations.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
The US’s imperialist past is full of ills, but why should Ukraine pay for America’s actions? We can’t sacrifice Ukrainian land to appease our guilt over Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or the Ottoman Empire or the Philippines or Afghanistan again or …
I am not, nor have ever, said that Ukraine should. Indeed - what I have said is that all imperial powers should reduce their influence whilst Ukraine should have all it’s land and be secure in its defence.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
I just think there is an unwillingness to accept nuance in geopolitical situations.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
I think that we shouldn't invade and steal territory from
Abkhazia Afghanistan : Zambia Zimbabwe
I think that Russia shouldn't invade invade and steal territory from
Abkhazia Afghanistan : Zambia Zimbabwe
If that's not how things are, can I please have a list of the countries we *can* invade and steal territory from?
So, you’re a Putinist who supports the idea of an independent Abkhazia rather than it being a piece of occupied Georgia…?
As for the progress in the war, the Ukranian advances in Zaphorzhzhia (sp?) are currently running at about five miles a month, which will enable them to reach the coast in mid 2024 or earlier if they speed up past the minefields. Their only danger is the unremarked Russian advances in/around the Kharkiv oblast, which at the same rate will enable them to retake Izium. The Ukrainian problem is not the counterattack, as they are willing to expend the men and materiel to do it (this war is a process of converting men and machines into land). It's what the Russians are doing elsewhere.
The last thing you would expect in an offensive is a linear rate of progress. I would think the most likely possibilities are:
1. Initial rapid advances slowing down over time as reserves are exhausted, logistic lines stretched and defences bolstered.
2. Slow initial advances that accelerate once the defensive reserves are exhausted or a key defensive line is broken.
3. Essentially little or no movement in the grand scheme of things.
We don't know whether (2) or (3) applies yet. I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that Ukraine may cause enough attrition to the Russian defence that we will see (2) before winter.
Your analysis is all straight lines. That's not how this war has gone.
There isn't a lot of fighting season left, though. Ukraine appear very recently to have committed some significant reserves (note the Challengers, Leopards, Marders etc) around Robotyne.
The next few weeks will settle whether it's 2 or 3.
Yes. It does seem as though significant new Ukrainian forces have been committed recently.
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'. \
This is balls. There is no definite (or indefinite) article in Russian.
Are you saying that Russia do not see it as their borderlands, which should be under their control, or are you just being a stupid pedant?
As for the progress in the war, the Ukranian advances in Zaphorzhzhia (sp?) are currently running at about five miles a month, which will enable them to reach the coast in mid 2024 or earlier if they speed up past the minefields. Their only danger is the unremarked Russian advances in/around the Kharkiv oblast, which at the same rate will enable them to retake Izium. The Ukrainian problem is not the counterattack, as they are willing to expend the men and materiel to do it (this war is a process of converting men and machines into land). It's what the Russians are doing elsewhere.
The last thing you would expect in an offensive is a linear rate of progress. I would think the most likely possibilities are:
1. Initial rapid advances slowing down over time as reserves are exhausted, logistic lines stretched and defences bolstered.
2. Slow initial advances that accelerate once the defensive reserves are exhausted or a key defensive line is broken.
3. Essentially little or no movement in the grand scheme of things.
We don't know whether (2) or (3) applies yet. I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that Ukraine may cause enough attrition to the Russian defence that we will see (2) before winter.
Your analysis is all straight lines. That's not how this war has gone.
There isn't a lot of fighting season left, though. Ukraine appear very recently to have committed some significant reserves (note the Challengers, Leopards, Marders etc) around Robotyne.
The next few weeks will settle whether it's 2 or 3.
The next few weeks will determine whether its 2 or 3 for now.
It is a remarkable turnaround that the narrative now is not when or how Ukraine will fall to Russia, but whether or when Ukraine will liberate its lands.
Ukraine has been building up its forces and is now giving it a go to do so, but its not finished building up its arms. They are also training up air forces, which are not ready for this push but will be ready in the future.
Ukraine is continuously building up its strength, meanwhile Russia is depleting its and isn't building its capabilities.
Even if Ukraine don't make a major breakthrough this summer, all the more reason to continue escalating our support to them in order to allow them better chances of achieving one next year.
As for the progress in the war, the Ukranian advances in Zaphorzhzhia (sp?) are currently running at about five miles a month, which will enable them to reach the coast in mid 2024 or earlier if they speed up past the minefields. Their only danger is the unremarked Russian advances in/around the Kharkiv oblast, which at the same rate will enable them to retake Izium. The Ukrainian problem is not the counterattack, as they are willing to expend the men and materiel to do it (this war is a process of converting men and machines into land). It's what the Russians are doing elsewhere.
The last thing you would expect in an offensive is a linear rate of progress. I would think the most likely possibilities are:
1. Initial rapid advances slowing down over time as reserves are exhausted, logistic lines stretched and defences bolstered.
2. Slow initial advances that accelerate once the defensive reserves are exhausted or a key defensive line is broken.
3. Essentially little or no movement in the grand scheme of things.
We don't know whether (2) or (3) applies yet. I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that Ukraine may cause enough attrition to the Russian defence that we will see (2) before winter.
Your analysis is all straight lines. That's not how this war has gone.
There's a word for reducing complex qualitative situations to simple quantitative measurements that can be understood by everyday people. That word is "statistics".
As for your analysis, I agree with it, but your three points reduce to "1: slow down", "2: speed up", or "3: stop". I hope that 2 will happen in the future, but I can only tell you about the present.
As a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, I object to statistics being described as something “that can be understood by everyday people”.
As another fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, I do unfortunately take your point...
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
Soccer is very popular but Men's soccer reached the physical limits of the amount of games that it's players could deliver. So the only way to expand the amount available is by using a whole new set of players.
Seems like women players is an easier sell than, say, lower division mens players.
If it goes well the people who sell the sport get to sell twice as much of 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.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
I just think there is an unwillingness to accept nuance in geopolitical situations.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
You could - and certainly the US is less than spotless in its foreign policy.
But I think it takes a degree of perversity to blame the US for the current Russian invasion. That is solely their responsibility.
I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Ukrainian history since 1991 could argue that what's happened is the fault of the US.
The issue is that Russia has kept meddling, increasingly openly and viciously, to try and re-annex it. At first covertly - the attempted rigging of the 2003 elections and the attempt to murder Yuschenko when that failed - then increasingly brazenly - locking up Tymoschenko and Yanukovych's government rejecting the EU Accession Agreement - and finally violently - seizing Crimea and invading the Donbas.
And then they wonder why Ukraine has been looking to join international alliances that would leave them immune to Russian meddling...
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
I just think there is an unwillingness to accept nuance in geopolitical situations.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
The US’s imperialist past is full of ills, but why should Ukraine pay for America’s actions? We can’t sacrifice Ukrainian land to appease our guilt over Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or the Ottoman Empire or the Philippines or Afghanistan again or …
Imperialism now considered bad.
That means, we shouldn't do it. Nor should other people.
Russia is an Empire with a number of chunks held in place by brute force.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance tospout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
Because its interesting and once it becomes interesting that develops its own momentum. You get a positive cycle of more people getting engaged, talking about it, which engages others.
Its not just women's football but the same is true of men's football. The amount of people following the Premier League around the world is magnitudes greater than were following First Division football in the 80s or before.
Its good to see women's sport getting its own oxygen of publicity, which is boosting engagement, meaning its quality improves and more people follow it and so on.
The same hasn't just happened with football, its happening with Cricket etc too.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I am not sure that many people are that interested. But England have a very good side and they play good football, so why not? It's similar with the cricket.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
You forget Gordon Brown. I turned a blind eye to his wickedness too, didn't I? His fiscal wickedness.
Seriously, you're all good on Ukraine - up with them, down with the abominable Putin - but there's a certain keyboard warrior posturing that creeps in sometimes. The effect is to make me grind my teeth rather than nod and punch the air, which is what I'd prefer to be doing with pro Ukraine anti Putin posts.
Ditto (on the other side of the coin) with Leon. His posts on this tend to needle and I told him so.
I'm just trying to improve PB communications and relationships - the 2 things being inextricably linked of course.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
I just think there is an unwillingness to accept nuance in geopolitical situations.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
The US’s imperialist past is full of ills, but why should Ukraine pay for America’s actions? We can’t sacrifice Ukrainian land to appease our guilt over Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or the Ottoman Empire or the Philippines or Afghanistan again or …
I am not, nor have ever, said that Ukraine should. Indeed - what I have said is that all imperial powers should reduce their influence whilst Ukraine should have all it’s land and be secure in its defence.
This is basically a rerun of Dan Hodges saying Keir Starmer has serious questions to answer over Beergate.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
Because its interesting and once it becomes interesting that develops its own momentum. You get a positive cycle of more people getting engaged, talking about it, which engages others.
Its not just women's football but the same is true of men's football. The amount of people following the Premier League around the world is magnitudes greater than were following First Division football in the 80s or before.
Its good to see women's sport getting its own oxygen of publicity, which is boosting engagement, meaning its quality improves and more people follow it and so on.
The same hasn't just happened with football, its happening with Cricket etc too.
I think you’ll find it’s all a woke conspiracy to turn our children into genderqueer disabled vegans or something.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I am not sure that many people are that interested. But England have a very good side and they play good football, so why not? It's similar with the cricket.
Sporting tastes evolving - gad, the very idea.
What's wrong with medieval football and long bow archery, forsooth?
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
Because its interesting and once it becomes interesting that develops its own momentum. You get a positive cycle of more people getting engaged, talking about it, which engages others.
Its not just women's football but the same is true of men's football. The amount of people following the Premier League around the world is magnitudes greater than were following First Division football in the 80s or before.
Its good to see women's sport getting its own oxygen of publicity, which is boosting engagement, meaning its quality improves and more people follow it and so on.
The same hasn't just happened with football, its happening with Cricket etc too.
I think you’ll find it’s all a woke conspiracy to turn our children into genderqueer disabled vegans or something.
You forgot the venison eating.
Wasn't there a thing in the more demented circles about women's tennis being a gateway to... stuff, way back when?
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
Soccer is very popular but Men's soccer reached the physical limits of the amount of games that it's players could deliver. So the only way to expand the amount available is by using a whole new set of players.
Seems like women players is an easier sell than, say, lower division mens players.
If it goes well the people who sell the sport get to sell twice as much of it.
Also national teams playing the world’s most popular sport are bound to attract attention from national audiences, once they gain enough salience. They are compelling
Women’s international football just had to become visible - and it did that when the Americans were dominant
Would I watch a game not involving England? Probably not. I still don’t find the sport good enough as pure sport. But maybe that will change too
Also what do they care what I think? Bravo the Lionesses
Anyone who knows the basics of US/Russia history knows that Russia is better off when it cooperates with the US.
For example: 'Hoover condemned the Bolsheviks, but warned President Wilson against an intervention in the Russian Civil War, as he viewed the White Russian forces as little better than the Bolsheviks and feared the possibility of a protracted U.S. involvement.[90] The Russian famine of 1921–22 claimed six million people, but the intervention of the ARA likely saved millions of lives.[91] When asked if he was not helping Bolshevism by providing relief, Hoover stated, "twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!"[85] Reflecting the gratitude of many Europeans, in July 1922, Soviet author Maxim Gorky told Hoover that "your help will enter history as a unique, gigantic achievement, worthy of the greatest glory, which will long remain in the memory of millions of Russians whom you have saved from death"' source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#World_War_I_and_aftermath
George H. W. Bush understood that, and unilaterally cut US nuclear forces as the Soviet Union was collapsing. George W. Bush understood that, and tried to work with Putin. Hilary Clinton understood that, and also tried to work, however clumsily, with Putin.
Both Bushes were able to negotiate substantial decreases in nuclear weapons. Even Obama, as inept as he is, was able to negotiate a decrease.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
But Barty Bobbins' lip-quivering pact of blood (delivered as the dambusters theme tune starts to play in the background) is completely free.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
Because its interesting and once it becomes interesting that develops its own momentum. You get a positive cycle of more people getting engaged, talking about it, which engages others.
Its not just women's football but the same is true of men's football. The amount of people following the Premier League around the world is magnitudes greater than were following First Division football in the 80s or before.
Its good to see women's sport getting its own oxygen of publicity, which is boosting engagement, meaning its quality improves and more people follow it and so on.
The same hasn't just happened with football, its happening with Cricket etc too.
I think you’ll find it’s all a woke conspiracy to turn our children into genderqueer disabled vegans or something.
I think it's more likely the opposite, if Alessia becomes the nation's sweetheart there's going to be pushback against nonsense about m to f trans players trying to supplant her.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
Soccer is very popular but Men's soccer reached the physical limits of the amount of games that it's players could deliver. So the only way to expand the amount available is by using a whole new set of players.
Seems like women players is an easier sell than, say, lower division mens players.
If it goes well the people who sell the sport get to sell twice as much of it.
Also national teams playing the world’s most popular sport are bound to attract attention from national audiences, once they gain enough salience. They are compelling
Women’s international football just had to become visible - and it did that when the Americans were dominant
Would I watch a game not involving England? Probably not. I still don’t find the sport good enough as pure sport. But maybe that will change too
Also what do they care what I think? Bravo the Lionesses
A season ticket to watch Leicester Women play in the top division is the same as a single match for the men. Admittedly the Women's team only narrowly escaped relegation last 2 seasons, so not a great watch.
I wonder if sport in general has more importance than it did. With so many different ways to watch it and talk about it, and with poorer nations getting richer and taking up sports, it simply expands
It’s not like women’s football is replacing anything else. Sport just occupies a bigger part of our lives
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
But Barty Bobbins' lip-quivering pact of blood (delivered as the dambusters theme tune starts to play in the background) is completely free.
And saying that Russia needs to have a land corridor to the Crimea to ethnically cleanse is completely free, is it?
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
Just describing the intent of a stupid phrase.
‘You beastly lefties are censoring me by disagreeing with me and not respecting my opinions. I could thcweam and thcweam!!!!’
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
A model which, like golf, is being disrupted by the Saudis
Signing the players seems to be the trophy they are chasing. Results or revenue, less important
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
Just describing the intent of a stupid phrase.
‘You beastly lefties are censoring me by disagreeing with me and not respecting my opinions. I could thcweam and thcweam!!!!’
It's still stupid name calling. Or do you believe that you get to insult others, with no comeback?
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.
That was when it was the Common Market not heading towards a Federal EU superstate with its own currency and army and President. In 1983 the Conservative vote was also more middle class and pro European than it is now and the Labour vote more working class and less Europhile than it is now.
The Liberals have been the only party consistently in favour of the EU and EEC
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
But it's not as if the women's team are succeeding where the men are failing. The "overpaid" men's team are playing other "overpaid" men's teams. The 'women succeed where men fail' line is a fallacy.
That said, I'll get much more pleasure from seeing the women's team win than I would for seeing the men win - not because the men are overpaid but because they seem a set of massive bellends.
I wonder if sport in general has more importance than it did. With so many different ways to watch it and talk about it, and with poorer nations getting richer and taking up sports, it simply expands
It’s not like women’s football is replacing anything else. Sport just occupies a bigger part of our lives
There are certainly more sports: I'm very fond of watching triathlon, although Ironman competitions are not very televisual because they take far too long.
But I wonder if attendance is greater? Football matches in (say) the 1930s could attract vast crowds. Do modern matches with all-seater stadia get more? But then we need to include television as well; you no longer need to be at the match to see it. There's probably also a much more hectic match calendar.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
What ridiculous bollocks
There is a mega shit-ton of money in football because it is the world’s most popular sport followed by - literally - billions of people all around the world. Billions of eyes = billions of ££££
That goes into the sport. Into the EPL. Into FIFA. Etc
The idea this money is some evil conjuring trick is beyond infantile
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
But Barty Bobbins' lip-quivering pact of blood (delivered as the dambusters theme tune starts to play in the background) is completely free.
And saying that Russia needs to have a land corridor to the Crimea to ethnically cleanse is completely free, is it?
Those of us who are less tumescent about this glorious conflict usually encounter a good deal of personal criticism. Nothing on here has 'a cost', but it's not guaranteed five likes and doubles all round.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
I wonder if sport in general has more importance than it did. With so many different ways to watch it and talk about it, and with poorer nations getting richer and taking up sports, it simply expands
It’s not like women’s football is replacing anything else. Sport just occupies a bigger part of our lives
There are certainly more sports: I'm very fond of watching triathlon, although Ironman competitions are not very televisual because they take far too long.
But I wonder if attendance is greater? Football matches in (say) the 1930s could attract vast crowds. Do modern matches with all-seater stadia get more? But then we need to include television as well; you no longer need to be at the match to see it. There's probably also a much more hectic match calendar.
World Athletics championships are on from this weekend. Will definitely be worth watching, it’s been said that very few world records are safe at the moment, including some that have stood for decades.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
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.
That was when it was the Common Market not heading towards a Federal EU superstate with its own currency and army and President. In 1983 the Conservative vote was also more middle class and pro European than it is now and the Labour vote more working class and less Europhile than it is now.
The Liberals have been the only party consistently in favour of the EU and EEC
There was a time when the biggest EU supporters were older white males, the Ken Clarke types who the Remainers all want to die off.
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
"Ever." Just how myopic can you get? Do you know how we got in to the EEC in the first place?
When it was the Common Market not the EU and even back then some Conservatives on the right like Enoch Powell joined leftwingers like Tony Benn in opposing membership in the 1975 EEC referendum
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Incidentally, the comment below got me looking at record attendances in the UK. I was unsurprised to see that the four largest attendances were in the 1920s and 1930s (before all-seaters and the war); I was surprised to see three out of the four were in Scotland.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
But Barty Bobbins' lip-quivering pact of blood (delivered as the dambusters theme tune starts to play in the background) is completely free.
And saying that Russia needs to have a land corridor to the Crimea to ethnically cleanse is completely free, is it?
Those of us who are less tumescent about this glorious conflict usually encounter a good deal of personal criticism. Nothing on here has 'a cost', but it's not guaranteed five likes and doubles all round.
Six is my bar. If I get fewer likes than that I know I haven't been bellicose enough.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
Because England started winning? The atmosphere at women's games tends to be a bit nicer than at men's games, at least for people who are not into bring extremely tribal - for some people the chance to scream abuse at the opposing players and fans is the main attraction.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Thankfully the cynicism seems to be confined in the UK still to those with a pre-existing Russia good, NATO/USA/West/capitalism bad mindset. The same sort of nutters who'd have been CND in the eighties.
Apart from one this site one manic individual who hits every opinion including that one regularly.
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
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".
No body living off sickness benefit (aka UC now) is 'comfortably off middle class'.
You do realise how much people who can't work get?
Do you realise how little it costs to live outside London excluding housing costs? Currently if you own your own house outright and there are two of you living in it, you can almost certainly quite comfortably live on £500/month each. My parents (both recently old enough to be entitled to a state pension) live a very middle class lifestyle from their pensions, with quite a bit left over.
The single largest problem with this country is that there are too many people chasing too little housing, so most people are paying a huge chunk of their income on housing. Pay your mortgage off, and it's a different world. We somehow need to end up with more houses than households, not the other way around.
There are only a few possible fixes for this, personally I think we need some housebuilding combined with really heavy restrictions on immigration (I would be aiming for net zero immigration or below) to solve the problem.
Lots of businesses will scream and shout about not getting cheap labour if we do this, but importing cheap labour to hold labour rates down (the policy of all UK governments for the last 30 years) doesn't help as every additional immigrants just drives up pressure on housing and services - so we have a vicious cycle where we keep importing more immigrants to try and solve the problems caused by importing immigrants.
It would help a lot if politicians of all stripes could be got to understand that GDP/capita is far more important a number than GDP - but I don't hold out much hope!
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
For someone who has no interest in football and indeed actively and ostentatiously dislikes it, you purport to know a great deal about 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.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
But Barty Bobbins' lip-quivering pact of blood (delivered as the dambusters theme tune starts to play in the background) is completely free.
And saying that Russia needs to have a land corridor to the Crimea to ethnically cleanse is completely free, is it?
Those of us who are less tumescent about this glorious conflict usually encounter a good deal of personal criticism. Nothing on here has 'a cost', but it's not guaranteed five likes and doubles all round.
None of us who want to support Ukraine want this conflict to be happening but Russia started it, and it can end when Russia vacates every inch of Ukrainian territory and accepts that it's neighbours are all free and sovereign. Then conflict is over.
You're not anti conflict. You're pro Russian invasion.
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Did I mention I was there that day?
You weren't were you? You should have told us about it. Only kidding. I enjoy the posts.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
But it's not as if the women's team are succeeding where the men are failing. The "overpaid" men's team are playing other "overpaid" men's teams. The 'women succeed where men fail' line is a fallacy.
That said, I'll get much more pleasure from seeing the women's team win than I would for seeing the men win - not because the men are overpaid but because they seem a set of massive bellends.
Do you actually know anything about football? The men’s team aren’t a set of massive bellends on any measure
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
They generate the money so they get paid big money. Like men’s footballers. Still trying to understand why you mock men’s footballers for being overpaid. Why are they overpaid and what would be a fairer amount?
I wonder if sport in general has more importance than it did. With so many different ways to watch it and talk about it, and with poorer nations getting richer and taking up sports, it simply expands
It’s not like women’s football is replacing anything else. Sport just occupies a bigger part of our lives
There are certainly more sports: I'm very fond of watching triathlon, although Ironman competitions are not very televisual because they take far too long.
But I wonder if attendance is greater? Football matches in (say) the 1930s could attract vast crowds. Do modern matches with all-seater stadia get more? But then we need to include television as well; you no longer need to be at the match to see it. There's probably also a much more hectic match calendar.
World Athletics championships are on from this weekend. Will definitely be worth watching, it’s been said that very few world records are safe at the moment, including some that have stood for decades.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
He knows fuck all about football/sport generally. Best ignored
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
Just describing the intent of a stupid phrase.
‘You beastly lefties are censoring me by disagreeing with me and not respecting my opinions. I could thcweam and thcweam!!!!’
It's still stupid name calling. Or do you believe that you get to insult others, with no comeback?
What gives you the idea that I’m particularly precious about being insulted?
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Really ?
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
I wonder if sport in general has more importance than it did. With so many different ways to watch it and talk about it, and with poorer nations getting richer and taking up sports, it simply expands
It’s not like women’s football is replacing anything else. Sport just occupies a bigger part of our lives
There are certainly more sports: I'm very fond of watching triathlon, although Ironman competitions are not very televisual because they take far too long.
But I wonder if attendance is greater? Football matches in (say) the 1930s could attract vast crowds. Do modern matches with all-seater stadia get more? But then we need to include television as well; you no longer need to be at the match to see it. There's probably also a much more hectic match calendar.
Live sport is also one of the few remaining reliable ways for broadcasters to get live viewers, rather than on-demand. The ad sales in live viewing are especially lucrative now because of their relative scarcity.
So it is in the interests of TV companies to promote as much live sport as they can, and make as big a deal of it as possible (which is why I suspect the tv companies had a word about excessive use of VAR).
Re. Attendance - it’s very healthy, in England anyway. Important to remember the extraordinary depth of English football here.
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.
That was when it was the Common Market not heading towards a Federal EU superstate with its own currency and army and President. In 1983 the Conservative vote was also more middle class and pro European than it is now and the Labour vote more working class and less Europhile than it is now.
The Liberals have been the only party consistently in favour of the EU and EEC
There was a time when the biggest EU supporters were older white males, the Ken Clarke types who the Remainers all want to die off.
No - I wish both Ken and you long and happy lives.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
Bing's actually rather good AI tool offers this: Men’s tennis generates more revenue than women’s tennis. In 2014, revenue on the men’s side was more than 50 percent higher than women’s, roughly $107 million to $70 million. However, in the United States, TV ratings for tennis grand slams have been slightly higher for women than men. Tennis is one of the few sports where the United States women, on average, make more than men. Outside the majors, the average earnings of U.S. women ranked by the Women’s Tennis Association were higher than the U.S. men in the Association of Tennis Professionals.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
They generate the money so they get paid big money. Like men’s footballers. Still trying to understand why you mock men’s footballers for being overpaid. Why are they overpaid and what would be a fairer amount?
They are overpaid because the sport is corrupt, as I said below. Get all the bungs and backhanders out of the system, put honest people in the major organisations (FIFA, UEFA etc), and get them to pay fair taxes in the countries in which they play. Then I'd be slightly happier.
Also, take the benefits of the money further down the footballing ladder.
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.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Really ?
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
With more confidence though. The "failing counteroffensive" is encouraging this kind of cynicism.
At least in the UK Ukraine hasn't (yet) become a left-right issue like it has in the US. Shows that Farage has less influence than he used to.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
But it's not as if the women's team are succeeding where the men are failing. The "overpaid" men's team are playing other "overpaid" men's teams. The 'women succeed where men fail' line is a fallacy.
That said, I'll get much more pleasure from seeing the women's team win than I would for seeing the men win - not because the men are overpaid but because they seem a set of massive bellends.
Do you actually know anything about football? The men’s team aren’t a set of massive bellends on any measure
Have any graduated from a Russell Group University? That of course is the PB threshold for a substantial salary. Anyone without Cantab or Oxon after their name should be on minimum wage.
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Did I mention I was there that day?
I think it did more damage to their cause than it was worth. Despite the mocking, ribbing and joshing, most Aussies and Brits get on ok, and most Aussies I've met respect fair play. What they did that day was technically in the laws, but not in the spirit. If they were genuinely annoyed at Bairstow leaving his crease at the end of the over (I don't think that they were) then 'stump' him, but withdraw the appeal to make the point.
What fascinates me is the state of denial in the Aussie team. Warner - "I've not seen any Bazball" etc. England batted with freedom and scored at over 5 an over throughout. What did he think Bazball was?
The reality was that the Aussies emerged with the Ashes retained and a 2-2 draw after being battered for the best part of 5 tests. Who posts boundary riders in the first over of a match?
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
Bing's actually rather good AI tool offers this: Men’s tennis generates more revenue than women’s tennis. In 2014, revenue on the men’s side was more than 50 percent higher than women’s, roughly $107 million to $70 million. However, in the United States, TV ratings for tennis grand slams have been slightly higher for women than men. Tennis is one of the few sports where the United States women, on average, make more than men. Outside the majors, the average earnings of U.S. women ranked by the Women’s Tennis Association were higher than the U.S. men in the Association of Tennis Professionals.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
They generate the money so they get paid big money. Like men’s footballers. Still trying to understand why you mock men’s footballers for being overpaid. Why are they overpaid and what would be a fairer amount?
They are overpaid because the sport is corrupt, as I said below. Get all the bungs and backhanders out of the system, put honest people in the major organisations (FIFA, UEFA etc), and get them to pay fair taxes in the countries in which they play. Then I'd be slightly happier.
Also, take the benefits of the money further down the footballing ladder.
Comments
Unless they're Australian.
But I think it takes a degree of perversity to blame the US for the current Russian invasion. That is solely their responsibility.
There is more information available to us than the area of control maps.
All downhill since then.
CHORTLE
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
It is a remarkable turnaround that the narrative now is not when or how Ukraine will fall to Russia, but whether or when Ukraine will liberate its lands.
Ukraine has been building up its forces and is now giving it a go to do so, but its not finished building up its arms. They are also training up air forces, which are not ready for this push but will be ready in the future.
Ukraine is continuously building up its strength, meanwhile Russia is depleting its and isn't building its capabilities.
Even if Ukraine don't make a major breakthrough this summer, all the more reason to continue escalating our support to them in order to allow them better chances of achieving one next year.
Seems like women players is an easier sell than, say, lower division mens players.
If it goes well the people who sell the sport get to sell twice as much of it.
The issue is that Russia has kept meddling, increasingly openly and viciously, to try and re-annex it. At first covertly - the attempted rigging of the 2003 elections and the attempt to murder Yuschenko when that failed - then increasingly brazenly - locking up Tymoschenko and Yanukovych's government rejecting the EU Accession Agreement - and finally violently - seizing Crimea and invading the Donbas.
And then they wonder why Ukraine has been looking to join international alliances that would leave them immune to Russian meddling...
That means, we shouldn't do it. Nor should other people.
Russia is an Empire with a number of chunks held in place by brute force.
Its not just women's football but the same is true of men's football. The amount of people following the Premier League around the world is magnitudes greater than were following First Division football in the 80s or before.
Its good to see women's sport getting its own oxygen of publicity, which is boosting engagement, meaning its quality improves and more people follow it and so on.
The same hasn't just happened with football, its happening with Cricket etc too.
Seriously, you're all good on Ukraine - up with them, down with the abominable Putin - but there's a certain keyboard warrior posturing that creeps in sometimes. The effect is to make me grind my teeth rather than nod and punch the air, which is what I'd prefer to be doing with pro Ukraine anti Putin posts.
Ditto (on the other side of the coin) with Leon. His posts on this tend to needle and I told him so.
I'm just trying to improve PB communications and relationships - the 2 things being inextricably linked of course.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
What's wrong with medieval football and long bow archery, forsooth?
Wasn't there a thing in the more demented circles about women's tennis being a gateway to... stuff, way back when?
Women’s international football just had to become visible - and it did that when the Americans were dominant
Would I watch a game not involving England? Probably not. I still don’t find the sport good enough as pure sport. But maybe that will change too
Also what do they care what I think? Bravo the Lionesses
For example:
'Hoover condemned the Bolsheviks, but warned President Wilson against an intervention in the Russian Civil War, as he viewed the White Russian forces as little better than the Bolsheviks and feared the possibility of a protracted U.S. involvement.[90] The Russian famine of 1921–22 claimed six million people, but the intervention of the ARA likely saved millions of lives.[91] When asked if he was not helping Bolshevism by providing relief, Hoover stated, "twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!"[85] Reflecting the gratitude of many Europeans, in July 1922, Soviet author Maxim Gorky told Hoover that "your help will enter history as a unique, gigantic achievement, worthy of the greatest glory, which will long remain in the memory of millions of Russians whom you have saved from death"'
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#World_War_I_and_aftermath
George H. W. Bush understood that, and unilaterally cut US nuclear forces as the Soviet Union was collapsing. George W. Bush understood that, and tried to work with Putin. Hilary Clinton understood that, and also tried to work, however clumsily, with Putin.
Both Bushes were able to negotiate substantial decreases in nuclear weapons. Even Obama, as inept as he is, was able to negotiate a decrease.
Get rid!
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
It’s not like women’s football is replacing anything else. Sport just occupies a bigger part of our lives
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
Signing the players seems to be the trophy they are chasing. Results or revenue, less important
The Liberals have been the only party consistently in favour of the EU and EEC
That said, I'll get much more pleasure from seeing the women's team win than I would for seeing the men win - not because the men are overpaid but because they seem a set of massive bellends.
But I wonder if attendance is greater? Football matches in (say) the 1930s could attract vast crowds. Do modern matches with all-seater stadia get more? But then we need to include television as well; you no longer need to be at the match to see it. There's probably also a much more hectic match calendar.
There is a mega shit-ton of money in football because it is the world’s most popular sport followed by - literally - billions of people all around the world. Billions of eyes = billions of ££££
That goes into the sport. Into the EPL. Into FIFA. Etc
The idea this money is some evil conjuring trick is beyond infantile
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
https://olympics.com/en/news/track-field-world-athletics-championships-2023-daily-highlights-guide-schedule
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Would be glorious.
I really struggle to cheer on international players who I boo or mock at matches when they play Leicester.
https://www.footballgroundmap.com/record-attendances-in-british-football
The atmosphere at women's games tends to be a bit nicer than at men's games, at least for people who are not into bring extremely tribal - for some people the chance to scream abuse at the opposing players and fans is the main attraction.
Apart from one this site one manic individual who hits every opinion including that one regularly.
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Did I mention I was there that day?
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
My parents (both recently old enough to be entitled to a state pension) live a very middle class lifestyle from their pensions, with quite a bit left over.
The single largest problem with this country is that there are too many people chasing too little housing, so most people are paying a huge chunk of their income on housing. Pay your mortgage off, and it's a different world. We somehow need to end up with more houses than households, not the other way around.
There are only a few possible fixes for this, personally I think we need some housebuilding combined with really heavy restrictions on immigration (I would be aiming for net zero immigration or below) to solve the problem.
Lots of businesses will scream and shout about not getting cheap labour if we do this, but importing cheap labour to hold labour rates down (the policy of all UK governments for the last 30 years) doesn't help as every additional immigrants just drives up pressure on housing and services - so we have a vicious cycle where we keep importing more immigrants to try and solve the problems caused by importing immigrants.
It would help a lot if politicians of all stripes could be got to understand that GDP/capita is far more important a number than GDP - but I don't hold out much hope!
- massive increase in quality
- a modicum of success for the England national side
- better marketing of the game
- the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price)
- far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models
- conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
You're not anti conflict. You're pro Russian invasion.
BTW, an armless para-cyclist won several gold medal at the championships. His prize? Watches...
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/armless-para-cyclist-grateful-for-watch-prize-at-world-championships
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/sports/soccer/womens-world-cup-australia.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Aussie Rules in particular tried to scupper its rise. But they’ve now given up
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
So it is in the interests of TV companies to promote as much live sport as they can, and make as big a deal of it as possible (which is why I suspect the tv companies had a word about excessive use of VAR).
Re. Attendance - it’s very healthy, in England anyway. Important to remember the extraordinary depth of English football here.
Men’s tennis generates more revenue than women’s tennis. In 2014, revenue on the men’s side was more than 50 percent higher than women’s, roughly $107 million to $70 million. However, in the United States, TV ratings for tennis grand slams have been slightly higher for women than men. Tennis is one of the few sports where the United States women, on average, make more than men. Outside the majors, the average earnings of U.S. women ranked by the Women’s Tennis Association were higher than the U.S. men in the Association of Tennis Professionals.
Also, take the benefits of the money further down the footballing ladder.
https://www.buzzacott.co.uk/insights/hmrc-continues-to-investigate-hundreds-of-professional-footballers
At least in the UK Ukraine hasn't (yet) become a left-right issue like it has in the US. Shows that Farage has less influence than he used to.
What fascinates me is the state of denial in the Aussie team. Warner - "I've not seen any Bazball" etc. England batted with freedom and scored at over 5 an over throughout. What did he think Bazball was?
The reality was that the Aussies emerged with the Ashes retained and a 2-2 draw after being battered for the best part of 5 tests. Who posts boundary riders in the first over of a match?
The women's game in football will now proceed to demonstrate the problem, once again.