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?
After watching replays, it's clear Bairstow was fairly stumped. He messed up.
The Keeper didn't hold onto the ball then throw it after Barstow left the crease, he threw it as soon as he caught it which is what a stumping is supposed to be. It was all Bairstow's fault.
The rest of your post - totally agreed.
The point is that Bairstow gained no batting advantage by leaving his crease - for example, turning a delivery into a full toss - which is, I suppose, why the stumping law is there: to stop such an advantage being risk free.
That's not the point. That's never been a part of the law. If a player makes a mistake he can be stumped and Bairstow did, just an egregious one.
Had Bairstow swung for the ball, missed, fallen over outside the crease and been stjmped would you say he hadn't gained an advantage so shouldn't be out?
No, he should be out in that situation: he tried to play a massive, heaving shot (and get all the advantages that would have brought if he'd connected) but lost his balance. If you're going to attempt something adventurous, then there are pitfalls if you don't execute with complete perfection. None of that is ethically similar to wandering up to have a chat with your mate because you though the over was at an end.
But he wandered down the crease after the keeper had already thrown the ball at the stumps. That's why the ball couldn't be dead, the ball never stopped moving.
Had the Keeper thrown the ball after the ball was settled and after Barstow started going down the pitch then that'd be awful, but it's not what happened.
Sorry but switching off your attention is gaining an advantage too. Paying attention is draining, and players need to do it as long as the ball is alive. Barstow didn't. Had he looked at the Keeper he'd have known not to set off down the pitch. As a player it's ridiculous, as a a Keeper himself it's inexcusable.
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.
If I’ve changed my mind (not entirely sure I have) it’s because I’ve been to Ukraine and seen what this awful war is doing to Ukraine. You can see the injured men - everywhere
I would love Ukraine to win and drive Putin (personally) into the Caspian Sea. I’m no longer sure they have the manpower to win and the idea they should sacrifice 100,000 or 500,0000 more men to make incremental gains makes me deeply uneasy
Russia’s economy is having a wobble but I fear China will always bail them out in the end. Beijing wants Putin to stay in place
🤷♂️
But what's the alternative? I would argue that the choice for Ukrainians is between living the life they have now, with risks of being maimed, or the life their compatriots in the east have, which from the limited information we have seems not to be a happy one. I would say the former would be preferable. There is no future in living in a Russian-occupied statelet.
There is no good alternative. The war is an abomination
I’m unwilling to urge Ukraine to throw ever more young men into this hideous meat grinder. If they want to do that fair enough and good luck - but I’m not gonna cheer lead it and wave pom poms (not that it matters what we think on here)
You went there, and failed to see the spirit of the people on show, and the determination to keep fighting for their national identity, their right to be Ukrainians?
I saw all of that, and I also saw the men on crutches, missing limbs, with major head wounds, etc
If they want to fight to the last able-bodied man, good luck to them
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The worry is people are making up their minds on this prematurely. The war has been going on for only a year and a half. The Korean war waxed and waned for 3 years.
He could of course be meaningfully defeated very rapidly by direct NATO action were it not for the fear of nuclear weapons. Nuclear blackmail has worked - of course it works. But it's a very dangerous precedent.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
People frequently buy second hand models and then stick them in a jar of one liquid or another to strip the acrylic paint from them, so that they can repaint them. So they're mostly pretty stable.
With resin it can be more variable. Some issues with high temperatures causing deformation.
The injected plastic? Sure, it seems pretty good. The new raster fabricated 3D printed plastic resin stuff is what worries me.
There are lots of different resins, so it's hard to say. I hope that the technology will develop to use more durable materials in this niche of 3d printing.
IMV we need a material that is perhaps unobtanium: it provides durable 3D prints (for whatever definition of 'durable' you have), yet can easily be cleaned and converted into feedsstock for 3D printing again.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
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?
After watching replays, it's clear Bairstow was fairly stumped. He messed up.
The Keeper didn't hold onto the ball then throw it after Barstow left the crease, he threw it as soon as he caught it which is what a stumping is supposed to be. It was all Bairstow's fault.
The rest of your post - totally agreed.
The point is that Bairstow gained no batting advantage by leaving his crease - for example, turning a delivery into a full toss - which is, I suppose, why the stumping law is there: to stop such an advantage being risk free.
That's not the point. That's never been a part of the law. If a player makes a mistake he can be stumped and Bairstow did, just an egregious one.
Had Bairstow swung for the ball, missed, fallen over outside the crease and been stjmped would you say he hadn't gained an advantage so shouldn't be out?
No, he should be out in that situation: he tried to play a massive, heaving shot (and get all the advantages that would have brought if he'd connected) but lost his balance. If you're going to attempt something adventurous, then there are pitfalls if you don't execute with complete perfection. None of that is ethically similar to wandering up to have a chat with your mate because you though the over was at an end.
But he wandered down the crease after the keeper had already thrown the ball at the stumps. That's why the ball couldn't be dead, the ball never stopped moving.
Had the Keeper thrown the ball after the ball was settled and after Barstow started going down the pitch then that'd be awful, but it's not what happened.
Sorry but switching off your attention is gaining an advantage too. Paying attention is draining, and players need to do it as long as the ball is alive. Barstow didn't. Had he looked at the Keeper he'd have known not to set off down the pitch. As a player it's ridiculous, as a a Keeper himself it's inexcusable.
Just more evidence that he isn't a proper 'keeper.
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?
After watching replays, it's clear Bairstow was fairly stumped. He messed up.
The Keeper didn't hold onto the ball then throw it after Barstow left the crease, he threw it as soon as he caught it which is what a stumping is supposed to be. It was all Bairstow's fault.
The rest of your post - totally agreed.
The point is that Bairstow gained no batting advantage by leaving his crease - for example, turning a delivery into a full toss - which is, I suppose, why the stumping law is there: to stop such an advantage being risk free.
That's not the point. That's never been a part of the law. If a player makes a mistake he can be stumped and Bairstow did, just an egregious one.
Had Bairstow swung for the ball, missed, fallen over outside the crease and been stjmped would you say he hadn't gained an advantage so shouldn't be out?
No, he should be out in that situation: he tried to play a massive, heaving shot (and get all the advantages that would have brought if he'd connected) but lost his balance. If you're going to attempt something adventurous, then there are pitfalls if you don't execute with complete perfection. None of that is ethically similar to wandering up to have a chat with your mate because you though the over was at an end.
But he wandered down the crease after the keeper had already thrown the ball at the stumps. That's why the ball couldn't be dead, the ball never stopped moving.
Had the Keeper thrown the ball after the ball was settled and after Barstow started going down the pitch then that'd be awful, but it's not what happened.
Sorry but switching off your attention is gaining an advantage too. Paying attention is draining, and players need to do it as long as the ball is alive. Barstow didn't. Had he looked at the Keeper he'd have known not to set off down the pitch. As a player it's ridiculous, as a a Keeper himself it's inexcusable.
It’s wasn’t in the spirit of the game, from a team known as a bunch of cheats - but at this level you have to play to the whistle.
As you say he’s a ‘keeper himself, Johnny really should have known better than to put himself in that position.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
I suffered the same went to my dads, came back to find my mother had had a clearout of my room and ditched my box of pristine 2000ad comics issues 1 to 50
Ouch.
I had similar. Went to University, came back at Christmas and my dad had cleared out most of my miniatures and my White Dwarf collection.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
People frequently buy second hand models and then stick them in a jar of one liquid or another to strip the acrylic paint from them, so that they can repaint them. So they're mostly pretty stable.
With resin it can be more variable. Some issues with high temperatures causing deformation.
The injected plastic? Sure, it seems pretty good. The new raster fabricated 3D printed plastic resin stuff is what worries me.
There are lots of different resins, so it's hard to say. I hope that the technology will develop to use more durable materials in this niche of 3d printing.
IMV we need a material that is perhaps unobtanium: it provides durable 3D prints (for whatever definition of 'durable' you have), yet can easily be cleaned and converted into feedsstock for 3D printing again.
That may prove to be the case, but the technology is young enough, and I know little enough about it, that I think there's still a good chance of it improving from where it is now.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
It was actually quite an interesting discussion - something I had been wondering about in general.
I know about the technology, but not the social field.
What is the breaking point before *everyone* is making their own miniatures rather than pay the prices? And someone creates a game ecosystem where paying sagans for bits of plastics is *not* a thing?
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
People frequently buy second hand models and then stick them in a jar of one liquid or another to strip the acrylic paint from them, so that they can repaint them. So they're mostly pretty stable.
With resin it can be more variable. Some issues with high temperatures causing deformation.
The injected plastic? Sure, it seems pretty good. The new raster fabricated 3D printed plastic resin stuff is what worries me.
There are lots of different resins, so it's hard to say. I hope that the technology will develop to use more durable materials in this niche of 3d printing.
IMV we need a material that is perhaps unobtanium: it provides durable 3D prints (for whatever definition of 'durable' you have), yet can easily be cleaned and converted into feedsstock for 3D printing again.
That may prove to be the case, but the technology is young enough, and I know little enough about it, that I think there's still a good chance of it improving from where it is now.
The technology’s getting better all the time, the problem GW has is the large overlap between people interested in their products and people interested in 3D printing. The maker community is also very online, and there’s dozens of forums. I’m sure GW will be okay, but they do need to keep a keen eye on technological changes.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
It was actually quite an interesting discussion - something I had been wondering about in general.
I know about the technology, but not the social field.
What is the breaking point before *everyone* is making their own miniatures rather than pay the prices? And someone creates a game ecosystem where paying sagans for bits of plastics is *not* a thing?
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
I suffered the same went to my dads, came back to find my mother had had a clearout of my room and ditched my box of pristine 2000ad comics issues 1 to 50
Ouch.
I had similar. Went to University, came back at Christmas and my dad had cleared out most of my miniatures and my White Dwarf collection.
I found, when about 17, a beautiful almost antique microscope in a junk shop. Cleaned it up and was, if only for that, the envy of the Biology VIth. Had it valued at roughly 10x what I’d paid. Went off to college and after a couple of term’s decided that I’d like my microscope rather than the college’s. Went home, looked for my microscope, to be told my father had given it to one of his friends.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The worry is people are making up their minds on this prematurely. The war has been going on for only a year and a half. The Korean war waxed and waned for 3 years.
He could of course be meaningfully defeated very rapidly by direct NATO action were it not for the fear of nuclear weapons. Nuclear blackmail has worked - of course it works. But it's a very dangerous precedent.
Wasn't this always the reality? Russian antics in Ukraine are essentially a performance that is being tolerated because of a fear of upsetting the nuclear settlement.
So why not just bog their largely failed operation down indefinetly, swallowing up all their resources?
Reflecting just a moment on the Malkinson case, this looks like a case where people over a number of years have acted so notably wrongly and knowingly unjustly that there ought to be prosecutions, civil actions, dismissals and all that.
So what I wonder is this: Will the decision of the justice department be to hold a public enquiry into the case, and perhaps into a slightly wider remit, for the usual reason of thus being able to deflect all questioning and action onto a much later date when the heat will have dissipated, media will have moved on, and blame dispersed widely enough for no-one to be actually accountable?
It is, after all, standard procedure. This is one to watch.
I wonder if there are grounds for a civil suit based on false imprisonment ? (Or even malicious prosecution, given the possible exculpatory evidence which the prosecution failed to share with his defence at the time of the original trial.)
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The worry is people are making up their minds on this prematurely. The war has been going on for only a year and a half. The Korean war waxed and waned for 3 years.
He could of course be meaningfully defeated very rapidly by direct NATO action were it not for the fear of nuclear weapons. Nuclear blackmail has worked - of course it works. But it's a very dangerous precedent.
And the Korean was started out (prior to the invasion from the north) as a genuine civil war. This is a straightforward invasion of a sovereign country.
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 have one small bee in my bonnet about the slams - womens games should be 5 sets too, if for no other reason than the drama of a 2-0 down to win 2-3 match. By playing only best of 3, the ladies get to play more doubles tennis, thus increasing their earning potential.
Ultimately if you play sport and earn huge sums then fair play. But its also important to remember that the highest paid layer is incredibly thin. Most footballers are not on 100K a week. Down in the lower leagues its more in the 30-50K a year. See also cricket, rugby etc
This is spot on: in tennis, once you go below the top 50, maybe even the top 30, incomes start to drop very sharply. There are players in the top 100 that would earn more money as a rookie policeman in LA.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
It was actually quite an interesting discussion - something I had been wondering about in general.
I know about the technology, but not the social field.
What is the breaking point before *everyone* is making their own miniatures rather than pay the prices? And someone creates a game ecosystem where paying sagans for bits of plastics is *not* a thing?
There are some people who commission others to paint their models for them. I've heard of knitters who pay others to sew the pieces together into a finished jumper.
So you won't ever have everyone home printing, and the market may settle at a point where the printing is done at a local print shop/game store for most people. I gave up on having a home (paper) printer for a while, and printed out the few things I really needed at the library. Wonder how many people have a paper printer at home?
There are game systems built around home printing, but they're relatively small at the moment. One page rules is the one I'm most familiar with. They operate on a model of providing free rules, a patreon subscription for new digital files every month, or selling individual files. They also sell commercial licenses to people to print the files and sell the models on to others. See: onepagerules.com
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
I suffered the same went to my dads, came back to find my mother had had a clearout of my room and ditched my box of pristine 2000ad comics issues 1 to 50
Ouch.
I had similar. Went to University, came back at Christmas and my dad had cleared out most of my miniatures and my White Dwarf collection.
I found, when about 17, a beautiful almost antique microscope in a junk shop. Cleaned it up and was, if only for that, the envy of the Biology VIth. Had it valued at roughly 10x what I’d paid. Went off to college and after a couple of term’s decided that I’d like my microscope rather than the college’s. Went home, looked for my microscope, to be told my father had given it to one of his friends.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
People frequently buy second hand models and then stick them in a jar of one liquid or another to strip the acrylic paint from them, so that they can repaint them. So they're mostly pretty stable.
With resin it can be more variable. Some issues with high temperatures causing deformation.
The injected plastic? Sure, it seems pretty good. The new raster fabricated 3D printed plastic resin stuff is what worries me.
There are lots of different resins, so it's hard to say. I hope that the technology will develop to use more durable materials in this niche of 3d printing.
IMV we need a material that is perhaps unobtanium: it provides durable 3D prints (for whatever definition of 'durable' you have), yet can easily be cleaned and converted into feedsstock for 3D printing again.
This is somewhat possible today, at least with FDM printing. PLA and PETG can be recycled into usable filament if you have the correct equipment - there's quite an amusing niche of people feeding used PETG drinks bottles into a machine that turns it into filament for printing.
But those machines are still rare and nobody does commercial recycling suitable for discarded 3D prints, so they go to landfill mostly.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
It was actually quite an interesting discussion - something I had been wondering about in general.
I know about the technology, but not the social field.
What is the breaking point before *everyone* is making their own miniatures rather than pay the prices? And someone creates a game ecosystem where paying sagans for bits of plastics is *not* a thing?
Also, third party printing to high quality.
Third party to high quality is generally blocked from personal use by costs - which are dominated by setup etc.
So I can get an abstract shape printed in by a company - but most of what they chargé is setup, finishing, and all the touch work.
The fascinating bit is the slow dissemination of better printers at the hobbyist prices.
Which will have other knock on effects in society.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
I suffered the same went to my dads, came back to find my mother had had a clearout of my room and ditched my box of pristine 2000ad comics issues 1 to 50
Ouch.
I had similar. Went to University, came back at Christmas and my dad had cleared out most of my miniatures and my White Dwarf collection.
I found, when about 17, a beautiful almost antique microscope in a junk shop. Cleaned it up and was, if only for that, the envy of the Biology VIth. Had it valued at roughly 10x what I’d paid. Went off to college and after a couple of term’s decided that I’d like my microscope rather than the college’s. Went home, looked for my microscope, to be told my father had given it to one of his friends.
Mine lost my Bond novels collection. Had every one in the pan original. Also lost a demo tape of me singing 3 songs, Blackbird, Psychokiller and The Weight.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
It was actually quite an interesting discussion - something I had been wondering about in general.
I know about the technology, but not the social field.
What is the breaking point before *everyone* is making their own miniatures rather than pay the prices? And someone creates a game ecosystem where paying sagans for bits of plastics is *not* a thing?
there are some people who commission others to paint their models for them. I've heard of knitters who pay others to sew the pieces together into a finished jumper.
So you won't ever have everyone home printing, and the market may settle at a point where the printing is done at a local print shop/game store for most people. I gave up on having a home (paper) printer for a while, and printed out the few things I really needed at the library. Wonder how many people have a paper printer at home?
There are game systems built around home printing, but they're relatively small at the moment. One page rules is the one I'm most familiar with. They operate on a model of providing free rules, a patreon subscription for new digital files every month, or selling individual files. They also sell commercial licenses to people to print the files and sell the models on to others. See: onepagerules.com
"Wonder how many people have a paper printer at home?"
I use an Epson EcoTank, and it's blooming brilliant. My old printer's ink was so expensive that I did not use it often. This meant that the heads needed cleaning/aligning to get a good print, which would use up some of the ink.
EcoTank ink is relatively cheap, and lasts an age, whilst the print quality is more than good enough for my purposes. It's really made my printer a useful object once again.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
Fair enough
My feeling is there might come a point when we need to take Ukraine aside and give them honest advice
It's a bit like watching a brave friend taking on a horrible bully three times his size. You cheer on your friend, you support him as much as you can, but what if it looks like the only way he can fight the bully off is by fighting so hard and desperately he loses both eyes, one arm, a leg and gets brain damage from the battering?
Is that really "winning"?
A good friend and ally gives support and assistance, but also truthful opinions, even if they are uncomfortable
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
People frequently buy second hand models and then stick them in a jar of one liquid or another to strip the acrylic paint from them, so that they can repaint them. So they're mostly pretty stable.
With resin it can be more variable. Some issues with high temperatures causing deformation.
The injected plastic? Sure, it seems pretty good. The new raster fabricated 3D printed plastic resin stuff is what worries me.
There are lots of different resins, so it's hard to say. I hope that the technology will develop to use more durable materials in this niche of 3d printing.
IMV we need a material that is perhaps unobtanium: it provides durable 3D prints (for whatever definition of 'durable' you have), yet can easily be cleaned and converted into feedsstock for 3D printing again.
That may prove to be the case, but the technology is young enough, and I know little enough about it, that I think there's still a good chance of it improving from where it is now.
I've no doubt it'll improve. So will the number of people who can design things in 3D packages, and have the skills to use various types of printers to their optimum.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
Fair enough
My feeling is there might come a point when we need to take Ukraine aside and give them honest advice
It's a bit like watching a brave friend taking on a horrible bully three times his size. You cheer on your friend, you support him as much as you can, but what if it looks like the only way he can fight the bully off is by fighting so hard and desperately he loses both eyes, one arm, a leg and gets brain damage from the battering?
Is that really "winning"?
A good friend and ally gives support and assistance, but also truthful opinions, even if they are uncomfortable
I think you'd need to provide an alternative though, so they can claim a win. Securing the Black Sea, or something like Iron Dome for their cities.
As recently as June 21 we had a destroyer floating around Crimea.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
People frequently buy second hand models and then stick them in a jar of one liquid or another to strip the acrylic paint from them, so that they can repaint them. So they're mostly pretty stable.
With resin it can be more variable. Some issues with high temperatures causing deformation.
The injected plastic? Sure, it seems pretty good. The new raster fabricated 3D printed plastic resin stuff is what worries me.
There are lots of different resins, so it's hard to say. I hope that the technology will develop to use more durable materials in this niche of 3d printing.
IMV we need a material that is perhaps unobtanium: it provides durable 3D prints (for whatever definition of 'durable' you have), yet can easily be cleaned and converted into feedsstock for 3D printing again.
That may prove to be the case, but the technology is young enough, and I know little enough about it, that I think there's still a good chance of it improving from where it is now.
I've no doubt it'll improve. So will the number of people who can design things in 3D packages, and have the skills to use various types of printers to their optimum.
You can print in many materials, including some very, very hard metals.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
Fair enough
My feeling is there might come a point when we need to take Ukraine aside and give them honest advice
It's a bit like watching a brave friend taking on a horrible bully three times his size. You cheer on your friend, you support him as much as you can, but what if it looks like the only way he can fight the bully off is by fighting so hard and desperately he loses both eyes, one arm, a leg and gets brain damage from the battering?
Is that really "winning"?
A good friend and ally gives support and assistance, but also truthful opinions, even if they are uncomfortable
I'm struggling to think of a precedent where such an approach has led to a good outcome.
I feel like the West should have the economic and military strength to be able to provide Ukraine with the supplies, equipment and training it requires to defeat the Russian Army.
If we're not, or not willing to do so, I think that has massive geopolitical repercussions which will be extremely negative.
It's in part a litmus test of whether there's any advantage in being friendly with the West, or if countries should look elsewhere for security assistance.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
Fair enough
My feeling is there might come a point when we need to take Ukraine aside and give them honest advice
It's a bit like watching a brave friend taking on a horrible bully three times his size. You cheer on your friend, you support him as much as you can, but what if it looks like the only way he can fight the bully off is by fighting so hard and desperately he loses both eyes, one arm, a leg and gets brain damage from the battering?
Is that really "winning"?
A good friend and ally gives support and assistance, but also truthful opinions, even if they are uncomfortable
But Russia isn't a bully three times Ukraine's size.
It's a weak, impoverished, decrepit, sanctioned nation without good logistics or ability to replenish it's forces, hiding behind layers of landmines in order to avoid losing the land it has illegally and temporarily seized.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
I suffered the same went to my dads, came back to find my mother had had a clearout of my room and ditched my box of pristine 2000ad comics issues 1 to 50
Ouch.
I had similar. Went to University, came back at Christmas and my dad had cleared out most of my miniatures and my White Dwarf collection.
I found, when about 17, a beautiful almost antique microscope in a junk shop. Cleaned it up and was, if only for that, the envy of the Biology VIth. Had it valued at roughly 10x what I’d paid. Went off to college and after a couple of term’s decided that I’d like my microscope rather than the college’s. Went home, looked for my microscope, to be told my father had given it to one of his friends.
Mine lost my Bond novels collection. Had every one in the pan original. Also lost a demo tape of me singing 3 songs, Blackbird, Psychokiller and The Weight.
My dad gave away a large quantity of top notch lab glassware, including some Liebig condensers that were works of art. Sob.
1. Complex weapons such as the WMD/delivery systems include precise parts
2. Production of precise parts relies on subtractive processes
3. Which had overwhelmingly relied on the manual control even in 1991
4. But have been radically computerized since then...
14. Domestic production = assembling machines from the European/Japanese components
15. There is almost zero Russian components in Russia-produced machines
16. (Except for beddings, casings, some non precision bearings, etc)
17. Everything requiring precision is imported...
20. Consistently, the Russian military manufacturing base consists of:
First and foremost, Western European Then, Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean And to a far lesser degree North American equipment
These are the machines that secure Russian capacity to produce weaponry.
Absolutely, there’s a lot of Western capital equipment in Russia, much of which will become unserviceable over time if sanctions hold. Hence their pulling 50-year-old tanks out of Siberia, because they’re much easier to get working than anything they’re building new. Even a lot of the old Soviet planes used parts from Ukraine, and Western planes are already being cannibalised for parts.
O&G industry, Russia’s primary source of hard currency, will be particularly badly affected - yet another reason for OPEC to drive the price down in the short term.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
I suffered the same went to my dads, came back to find my mother had had a clearout of my room and ditched my box of pristine 2000ad comics issues 1 to 50
Ouch.
I had similar. Went to University, came back at Christmas and my dad had cleared out most of my miniatures and my White Dwarf collection.
I found, when about 17, a beautiful almost antique microscope in a junk shop. Cleaned it up and was, if only for that, the envy of the Biology VIth. Had it valued at roughly 10x what I’d paid. Went off to college and after a couple of term’s decided that I’d like my microscope rather than the college’s. Went home, looked for my microscope, to be told my father had given it to one of his friends.
Mine lost my Bond novels collection. Had every one in the pan original. Also lost a demo tape of me singing 3 songs, Blackbird, Psychokiller and The Weight.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
I suffered the same went to my dads, came back to find my mother had had a clearout of my room and ditched my box of pristine 2000ad comics issues 1 to 50
Ouch.
I had similar. Went to University, came back at Christmas and my dad had cleared out most of my miniatures and my White Dwarf collection.
I found, when about 17, a beautiful almost antique microscope in a junk shop. Cleaned it up and was, if only for that, the envy of the Biology VIth. Had it valued at roughly 10x what I’d paid. Went off to college and after a couple of term’s decided that I’d like my microscope rather than the college’s. Went home, looked for my microscope, to be told my father had given it to one of his friends.
Mine lost my Bond novels collection. Had every one in the pan original. Also lost a demo tape of me singing 3 songs, Blackbird, Psychokiller and The Weight.
My dad gave away a large quantity of top notch lab glassware, including some Liebig condensers that were works of art. Sob.
1. Complex weapons such as the WMD/delivery systems include precise parts
2. Production of precise parts relies on subtractive processes
3. Which had overwhelmingly relied on the manual control even in 1991
4. But have been radically computerized since then...
14. Domestic production = assembling machines from the European/Japanese components
15. There is almost zero Russian components in Russia-produced machines
16. (Except for beddings, casings, some non precision bearings, etc)
17. Everything requiring precision is imported...
20. Consistently, the Russian military manufacturing base consists of:
First and foremost, Western European Then, Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean And to a far lesser degree North American equipment
These are the machines that secure Russian capacity to produce weaponry.
Absolutely, there’s a lot of Western capital equipment in Russia, much of which will become unserviceable over time if sanctions hold. Hence their pulling 50-year-old tanks out of Siberia, because they’re much easier to get working than anything they’re building new. Even a lot of the old Soviet planes used parts from Ukraine, and Western planes are already being cannibalised for parts.
O&G industry, Russia’s primary source of hard currency, will be particularly badly affected - yet another reason for OPEC to drive the price down in the short term.
Yes. Ukraine's forces are continuously improving. They haven't even got the jets that we are training them to fly in the air yet.
Russia's forces are continuously deteriorating. They lack the capability under sanctions to replace that which they are losing, let alone improve their forces.
As long as the West holds it's nerve, momemtum in this war is going one way. Logistics wins wars and Russia doesn't have it.
Hence the desperation of their proxies suggesting we should just call this a draw now and go into a frozen conflict. Because they know Russia isn't capable of pushing on, but Ukraine is.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
This argument hinges on a very nebulous distinction between the US, the broader West and its allies.
If you try to fall back on the logic of the Cold War then you end up in a contradiction where Ukraine is simultaneously 'us' and 'not us'.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
I suffered the same went to my dads, came back to find my mother had had a clearout of my room and ditched my box of pristine 2000ad comics issues 1 to 50
Ouch.
I had similar. Went to University, came back at Christmas and my dad had cleared out most of my miniatures and my White Dwarf collection.
I found, when about 17, a beautiful almost antique microscope in a junk shop. Cleaned it up and was, if only for that, the envy of the Biology VIth. Had it valued at roughly 10x what I’d paid. Went off to college and after a couple of term’s decided that I’d like my microscope rather than the college’s. Went home, looked for my microscope, to be told my father had given it to one of his friends.
Mine lost my Bond novels collection. Had every one in the pan original. Also lost a demo tape of me singing 3 songs, Blackbird, Psychokiller and The Weight.
My dad gave away a large quantity of top notch lab glassware, including some Liebig condensers that were works of art. Sob.
afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue
Doubt that.
What do you notice about this picture?
* All the cameras are pointed away from the lady making the serve. Bonus points if you can remind me in which Hitchcock film something similar was a plot point.
Strangers on a Train? Love that scene at the end with the runaway carousel.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
But. Hasn't happened yet.
Ukraine keep on pointing out that Russia is still producing missiles made with Western components. If we have new chips going into Russian missiles you'd think there would be some subterfuge that could be employed to have the missiles return to sender, or detonate aloft, etc, but it hasn't happened.
You get the sense that the West hasn't fully committed to a Russian defeat.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
(Yes, let’s see sanctions on equipment parts and servicing made much tighter).
Apparently, John Deere has been remote bricking stolen Ukrainian farm machinery, taken by the Russians.
Glad to see that even the scummiest of companies, can sometimes be persuaded to do the right thing!
Apparently it's the flip side of their scumminess. Yes, you are locked to their repair centre, parts etc. And they will brick it if you break their rules. But if you report your tractor stolen, they will brick it remotely.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
But. Hasn't happened yet.
Ukraine keep on pointing out that Russia is still producing missiles made with Western components. If we have new chips going into Russian missiles you'd think there would be some subterfuge that could be employed to have the missiles return to sender, or detonate aloft, etc, but it hasn't happened.
You get the sense that the West hasn't fully committed to a Russian defeat.
There was a book I read, a long time back, about how MI6 recruited all the shady arms salesmen to not quite sell stuff to the Argentines during the Falklands War. Wasted vast amounts of Argentine money and time on weapons that never quite arrived.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
(Yes, let’s see sanctions on equipment parts and servicing made much tighter).
Apparently, John Deere has been remote bricking stolen Ukrainian farm machinery, taken by the Russians.
Glad to see that even the scummiest of companies, can sometimes be persuaded to do the right thing!
Apparently it's the flip side of their scumminess. Yes, you are locked to their repair centre, parts etc. And they will brick it if you break their rules. But if you report your tractor stolen, they will brick it remotely.
I had no idea John Deere were known to be a scummy company. And I'm slightly taken aback that pb.com is so au fait with the tractor market that this is apparently well known on here.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
I suffered the same went to my dads, came back to find my mother had had a clearout of my room and ditched my box of pristine 2000ad comics issues 1 to 50
Ouch.
I had similar. Went to University, came back at Christmas and my dad had cleared out most of my miniatures and my White Dwarf collection.
I found, when about 17, a beautiful almost antique microscope in a junk shop. Cleaned it up and was, if only for that, the envy of the Biology VIth. Had it valued at roughly 10x what I’d paid. Went off to college and after a couple of term’s decided that I’d like my microscope rather than the college’s. Went home, looked for my microscope, to be told my father had given it to one of his friends.
Mine lost my Bond novels collection. Had every one in the pan original. Also lost a demo tape of me singing 3 songs, Blackbird, Psychokiller and The Weight.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
Fair enough
My feeling is there might come a point when we need to take Ukraine aside and give them honest advice
It's a bit like watching a brave friend taking on a horrible bully three times his size. You cheer on your friend, you support him as much as you can, but what if it looks like the only way he can fight the bully off is by fighting so hard and desperately he loses both eyes, one arm, a leg and gets brain damage from the battering?
Is that really "winning"?
A good friend and ally gives support and assistance, but also truthful opinions, even if they are uncomfortable
But Russia isn't a bully three times Ukraine's size.
It's a weak, impoverished, decrepit, sanctioned nation without good logistics or ability to replenish it's forces, hiding behind layers of landmines in order to avoid losing the land it has illegally and temporarily seized.
Hmm
There was an excellent article in the NYT recently which discussed measures of economic might (which feeds into military might), specifically GDP nominal versus GDP by PPP
The writer posited the idea that this war is showing that GDP by PPP is more important when assessing miltary strength
On GDP nominal Russia is relatiely weedy: down at 11th, behind Canada and Italy, and way behind Germany, UK, France
Does this explain Russia's unexpected resilience and strength after so many profound setbacks? Perhaps it does. Also Russia's sheer size, wealth of raw materials and population (however drunk) must likewise be factored in. Meanwhile, western sanctions have not really had the impact we'd hoped, mainly because Russia is being supported by China, which is providing technology, and is also helping Russia to export oil and gas, and is helping Moscow bypass sanctions via friendly 3rd countries, etc
By PPP China is, of course, the most powerful economy on earth, as well as the world's biggest trader, and 2nd largest nation by sheer size (just behind India, which appears neutral in this war)
We may have reached a geopolitical inflection point where we butt up against the limits of western power
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
(Yes, let’s see sanctions on equipment parts and servicing made much tighter).
Apparently, John Deere has been remote bricking stolen Ukrainian farm machinery, taken by the Russians.
Glad to see that even the scummiest of companies, can sometimes be persuaded to do the right thing!
Apparently it's the flip side of their scumminess. Yes, you are locked to their repair centre, parts etc. And they will brick it if you break their rules. But if you report your tractor stolen, they will brick it remotely.
I had no idea John Deere were known to be a scummy company. And I'm slightly taken aback that pb.com is so au fait with the tractor market that this is apparently well known on here.
It's an IT thing - the issue about remote updates, the company believing that they are really renting you the product they sold you etc etc.
Coming to a car near you, quite soon.
The only reason it hasn't been more of thing in the car world, is that Tesla, who pioneered rolling out much of the idea of centralised computers in cars, over the air updates etc haven't been really heavy handed with it yet.
The biggest one I recall was a chap who rebuilt a crashed Tesla, only to find that it was in their database as written off - it was a write off by the insurance company. So his Tesla can't charge at a Tesla supercharger.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
(Yes, let’s see sanctions on equipment parts and servicing made much tighter).
Apparently, John Deere has been remote bricking stolen Ukrainian farm machinery, taken by the Russians.
Glad to see that even the scummiest of companies, can sometimes be persuaded to do the right thing!
Apparently it's the flip side of their scumminess. Yes, you are locked to their repair centre, parts etc. And they will brick it if you break their rules. But if you report your tractor stolen, they will brick it remotely.
I had no idea John Deere were known to be a scummy company. And I'm slightly taken aback that pb.com is so au fait with the tractor market that this is apparently well known on here.
They’re the poster-child for the right-to-repair movement in the US. Almost all of their components are keyed to the vehicle in software, and error codes can only be reset by the dealer. In a time-critical situation such as a harvest, it can take days to get someone out to fix it, even if it’s just a sensor fault.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
But. Hasn't happened yet.
Ukraine keep on pointing out that Russia is still producing missiles made with Western components. If we have new chips going into Russian missiles you'd think there would be some subterfuge that could be employed to have the missiles return to sender, or detonate aloft, etc, but it hasn't happened.
You get the sense that the West hasn't fully committed to a Russian defeat.
There was a book I read, a long time back, about how MI6 recruited all the shady arms salesmen to not quite sell stuff to the Argentines during the Falklands War. Wasted vast amounts of Argentine money and time on weapons that never quite arrived.
Right. So MI6 not having such a good war then. Surely they should have been investing in the Krygyrz logistics industry so that Western components somehow got lost on their way to Russia?
I've been impressed with how Iranian and Pakistani artillery ammunition has ended up in Ukrainian hands, despite the friendliness of both governments towards Russia - clearly some good work on the shady parts of the international arms markets going on - but to have newly manufactured Russian missiles still have dozens of Western components? Something going wrong there.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
Fair enough
My feeling is there might come a point when we need to take Ukraine aside and give them honest advice
It's a bit like watching a brave friend taking on a horrible bully three times his size. You cheer on your friend, you support him as much as you can, but what if it looks like the only way he can fight the bully off is by fighting so hard and desperately he loses both eyes, one arm, a leg and gets brain damage from the battering?
Is that really "winning"?
A good friend and ally gives support and assistance, but also truthful opinions, even if they are uncomfortable
But Russia isn't a bully three times Ukraine's size.
It's a weak, impoverished, decrepit, sanctioned nation without good logistics or ability to replenish it's forces, hiding behind layers of landmines in order to avoid losing the land it has illegally and temporarily seized.
Hmm
There was an excellent article in the NYT recently which discussed measures of economic might (which feeds into military might), specifically GDP nominal versus GDP by PPP
The writer posited the idea that this war is showing that GDP by PPP is more important when assessing miltary strength
On GDP nominal Russia is relatiely weedy: down at 11th, behind Canada and Italy, and way behind Germany, UK, France
Does this explain Russia's unexpected resilience and strength after so many profound setbacks? Perhaps it does. Also Russua's sheer size, wealth of raw mterials and population (however drunk) must likewise be factored in. Meanwhile, western sanctions have not really had the impact we'd hoped, mainly because Russia is being supported by China, which is providing technology, and is also helping Russia to export oil and gas, and bypass sanctions via friendly 3rd countries, etc
By PPP China is, of course, the most powerful economy on earth, as well as the world's biggest trader, and 2nd largest nation by sheer size (just behind India, which appears neutral in this war)
We may have reached a geopolitical inflection point where we butt up against the limits of western power
So Russia is an impoverished, sanctioned backswater compared to the economic might of NATO combined?
And exactly what profound resilience has Russia shown?
It went in expecting to overpower Kyiv in days.
It's now hiding behind landmines as it's too scared of Ukraine to fight directly and is trying desperately to cling on to that which it has gained.
If Russia were "strong" as claimed it would be seeking to keep conquering lands until the whole of Ukraine has fallen. Not desperately hoping for a stalemate.
1. Complex weapons such as the WMD/delivery systems include precise parts
2. Production of precise parts relies on subtractive processes
3. Which had overwhelmingly relied on the manual control even in 1991
4. But have been radically computerized since then...
14. Domestic production = assembling machines from the European/Japanese components
15. There is almost zero Russian components in Russia-produced machines
16. (Except for beddings, casings, some non precision bearings, etc)
17. Everything requiring precision is imported...
20. Consistently, the Russian military manufacturing base consists of:
First and foremost, Western European Then, Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean And to a far lesser degree North American equipment
These are the machines that secure Russian capacity to produce weaponry.
Absolutely, there’s a lot of Western capital equipment in Russia, much of which will become unserviceable over time if sanctions hold..
The west isn't effectively sanctioning supplies for machine tools.
Russia has been able to obtain Western components relatively easily through third countries. There's been a reluctance to tighten up on this.
German exports to Kyrgyzstan are up 1000%, which is obviously acting as a backdoor into Russia.
Sounds like a few German executives need to be eating porridge. That’s blatant sanctions-busting.
Though the maths probably exaggerates the problem here a bit. 1000% of what was presumably a minuscule amount before the war is I would assume still a fraction of pre-war exports to Russia. But we’d need to add up all export growth from Western countries to likely Russian backdoors to get a sense of relative scale.
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...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
It was actually quite an interesting discussion - something I had been wondering about in general.
I know about the technology, but not the social field.
What is the breaking point before *everyone* is making their own miniatures rather than pay the prices? And someone creates a game ecosystem where paying sagans for bits of plastics is *not* a thing?
There are some people who commission others to paint their models for them. I've heard of knitters who pay others to sew the pieces together into a finished jumper.
So you won't ever have everyone home printing, and the market may settle at a point where the printing is done at a local print shop/game store for most people. I gave up on having a home (paper) printer for a while, and printed out the few things I really needed at the library. Wonder how many people have a paper printer at home?
There are game systems built around home printing, but they're relatively small at the moment. One page rules is the one I'm most familiar with. They operate on a model of providing free rules, a patreon subscription for new digital files every month, or selling individual files. They also sell commercial licenses to people to print the files and sell the models on to others. See: onepagerules.com
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The worry is people are making up their minds on this prematurely. The war has been going on for only a year and a half. The Korean war waxed and waned for 3 years.
He could of course be meaningfully defeated very rapidly by direct NATO action were it not for the fear of nuclear weapons. Nuclear blackmail has worked - of course it works. But it's a very dangerous precedent.
And the Korean was started out (prior to the invasion from the north) as a genuine civil war. This is a straightforward invasion of a sovereign country.
It's quite an unusual war in that all of the blame for it is on one party. Normally you get some arguability around that.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
Fair enough
My feeling is there might come a point when we need to take Ukraine aside and give them honest advice
It's a bit like watching a brave friend taking on a horrible bully three times his size. You cheer on your friend, you support him as much as you can, but what if it looks like the only way he can fight the bully off is by fighting so hard and desperately he loses both eyes, one arm, a leg and gets brain damage from the battering?
Is that really "winning"?
A good friend and ally gives support and assistance, but also truthful opinions, even if they are uncomfortable
But Russia isn't a bully three times Ukraine's size.
It's a weak, impoverished, decrepit, sanctioned nation without good logistics or ability to replenish it's forces, hiding behind layers of landmines in order to avoid losing the land it has illegally and temporarily seized.
Hmm
There was an excellent article in the NYT recently which discussed measures of economic might (which feeds into military might), specifically GDP nominal versus GDP by PPP
The writer posited the idea that this war is showing that GDP by PPP is more important when assessing miltary strength
On GDP nominal Russia is relatiely weedy: down at 11th, behind Canada and Italy, and way behind Germany, UK, France
Does this explain Russia's unexpected resilience and strength after so many profound setbacks? Perhaps it does. Also Russua's sheer size, wealth of raw mterials and population (however drunk) must likewise be factored in. Meanwhile, western sanctions have not really had the impact we'd hoped, mainly because Russia is being supported by China, which is providing technology, and is also helping Russia to export oil and gas, and bypass sanctions via friendly 3rd countries, etc
By PPP China is, of course, the most powerful economy on earth, as well as the world's biggest trader, and 2nd largest nation by sheer size (just behind India, which appears neutral in this war)
We may have reached a geopolitical inflection point where we butt up against the limits of western power
So Russia is an impoverished, sanctioned backswater compared to the economic might of NATO combined?
And exactly what profound resilience has Russia shown?
It went in expecting to overpower Kyiv in days.
It's now hiding behind landmines as it's too scared of Ukraine to fight directly and is trying desperately to cling on to that which it has gained.
If Russia were "strong" as claimed it would be seeking to keep conquering lands until the whole of Ukraine has fallen. Not desperately hoping for a stalemate.
Why is every response you make so histrionic and emotional?
I'm not averse to drunkne hyperbole myself, but there's a time and place. Argue the points, don't just emote
1. Complex weapons such as the WMD/delivery systems include precise parts
2. Production of precise parts relies on subtractive processes
3. Which had overwhelmingly relied on the manual control even in 1991
4. But have been radically computerized since then...
14. Domestic production = assembling machines from the European/Japanese components
15. There is almost zero Russian components in Russia-produced machines
16. (Except for beddings, casings, some non precision bearings, etc)
17. Everything requiring precision is imported...
20. Consistently, the Russian military manufacturing base consists of:
First and foremost, Western European Then, Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean And to a far lesser degree North American equipment
These are the machines that secure Russian capacity to produce weaponry.
Absolutely, there’s a lot of Western capital equipment in Russia, much of which will become unserviceable over time if sanctions hold..
The west isn't effectively sanctioning supplies for machine tools.
Russia has been able to obtain Western components relatively easily through third countries. There's been a reluctance to tighten up on this.
German exports to Kyrgyzstan are up 1000%, which is obviously acting as a backdoor into Russia.
Sounds like a few German executives need to be eating porridge. That’s blatant sanctions-busting.
Though the maths probably exaggerates the problem here a bit. 1000% of what was presumably a minuscule amount before the war is I would assume still a fraction of pre-war exports to Russia. But we’d need to add up all export growth from Western countries to likely Russian backdoors to get a sense of relative scale.
Oh indeed, but a small number up 10x should ring alarm bells in Germany, in a way that a small increase in the large China and India markets might not.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
But. Hasn't happened yet.
Ukraine keep on pointing out that Russia is still producing missiles made with Western components. If we have new chips going into Russian missiles you'd think there would be some subterfuge that could be employed to have the missiles return to sender, or detonate aloft, etc, but it hasn't happened.
You get the sense that the West hasn't fully committed to a Russian defeat.
There was a book I read, a long time back, about how MI6 recruited all the shady arms salesmen to not quite sell stuff to the Argentines during the Falklands War. Wasted vast amounts of Argentine money and time on weapons that never quite arrived.
Right. So MI6 not having such a good war then. Surely they should have been investing in the Krygyrz logistics industry so that Western components somehow got lost on their way to Russia?
I've been impressed with how Iranian and Pakistani artillery ammunition has ended up in Ukrainian hands, despite the friendliness of both governments towards Russia - clearly some good work on the shady parts of the international arms markets going on - but to have newly manufactured Russian missiles still have dozens of Western components? Something going wrong there.
"Western components" can do a heck of a lot of heavy lifting.
If you make a widget in the millions, and sell to third party distributors, it can be next to impossible to say where they'll end up. These may be components that sell for a couple of quid, and they only need one per plane.
Then there's the fakes as well: an Irish company called Tillotson has components in Russian UAVs; but they claim that they're actually Chinese fakes - something they've apparently had trouble with in the past.
There are problems with Russia relying on the grey market. When a computer chip is made - particularly 'interesting' ones - they go through a grading process after they are made, called binning. The military pay *a lot* extra for their chips, to ensure they get the 'best' ones for their purpose. And when I say a lot, it can be orders of magnitude more - because they can require lots of extra tests. The Russians will *not* be getting the best chips, and perhaps even ones that only just scraped through the consumer tests. The sweepings off the foundry floor, perhaps.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Why would we? China is not Russia.
China has no love for the West but it also has no love lost for Russia. They're rivals not allies in the East. That's why while we have been pumping arms into Ukraine, China have barely lifted a finger.
China in the 20th century had to play second fiddle to Russia/USSR. China is interested in China and it wants Chinese hegemony in the East, to which Russia is a threat.
Russia still occupies much former Chinese territory that China covets.
Seeking Russia ground down and losing its power status is in China's own strategic interests. A humble, defeated Russia falling under China's sphere of influence, in the East at least, if not acquiring some Russia land directly is absolutely fine for China.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Bit early for you to be drunk, isn't it?
This is really fecking tiresome. In what way is my pointing out a simple fact of global economics, somehow evidence that I am "drunk"?
The idea that the West ever had untrammelled power is not supported by the facts.
Russian can’t win a war against *Ukraine* - which is being supported with NATOs odd socks and stuff that was in the garage sale. The American contribution is a few percent of their military spending.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
But. Hasn't happened yet.
Ukraine keep on pointing out that Russia is still producing missiles made with Western components. If we have new chips going into Russian missiles you'd think there would be some subterfuge that could be employed to have the missiles return to sender, or detonate aloft, etc, but it hasn't happened.
You get the sense that the West hasn't fully committed to a Russian defeat.
There was a book I read, a long time back, about how MI6 recruited all the shady arms salesmen to not quite sell stuff to the Argentines during the Falklands War. Wasted vast amounts of Argentine money and time on weapons that never quite arrived.
Right. So MI6 not having such a good war then. Surely they should have been investing in the Krygyrz logistics industry so that Western components somehow got lost on their way to Russia?
I've been impressed with how Iranian and Pakistani artillery ammunition has ended up in Ukrainian hands, despite the friendliness of both governments towards Russia - clearly some good work on the shady parts of the international arms markets going on - but to have newly manufactured Russian missiles still have dozens of Western components? Something going wrong there.
"Western components" can do a heck of a lot of heavy lifting.
If you make a widget in the millions, and sell to third party distributors, it can be next to impossible to say where they'll end up. These may be components that sell for a couple of quid, and they only need one per plane.
Then there's the fakes as well: an Irish company called Tillotson has components in Russian UAVs; but they claim that they're actually Chinese fakes - something they've apparently had trouble with in the past.
There are problems with Russia relying on the grey market. When a computer chip is made - particularly 'interesting' ones - they go through a grading process after they are made, called binning. The military pay *a lot* extra for their chips, to ensure they get the 'best' ones for their purpose. And when I say a lot, it can be orders of magnitude more - because they can require lots of extra tests. The Russians will *not* be getting the best chips, and perhaps even ones that only just scraped through the consumer tests. The sweepings off the foundry floor, perhaps.
Fake Chinese plane (and car) parts is a massive problem at the moment. There were several tonnes of fake Airbus parts seized in the sandpit a few months back, en route from China to Africa.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
Fair enough
My feeling is there might come a point when we need to take Ukraine aside and give them honest advice
It's a bit like watching a brave friend taking on a horrible bully three times his size. You cheer on your friend, you support him as much as you can, but what if it looks like the only way he can fight the bully off is by fighting so hard and desperately he loses both eyes, one arm, a leg and gets brain damage from the battering?
Is that really "winning"?
A good friend and ally gives support and assistance, but also truthful opinions, even if they are uncomfortable
But Russia isn't a bully three times Ukraine's size.
It's a weak, impoverished, decrepit, sanctioned nation without good logistics or ability to replenish it's forces, hiding behind layers of landmines in order to avoid losing the land it has illegally and temporarily seized.
Hmm
There was an excellent article in the NYT recently which discussed measures of economic might (which feeds into military might), specifically GDP nominal versus GDP by PPP
The writer posited the idea that this war is showing that GDP by PPP is more important when assessing miltary strength
On GDP nominal Russia is relatiely weedy: down at 11th, behind Canada and Italy, and way behind Germany, UK, France
Does this explain Russia's unexpected resilience and strength after so many profound setbacks? Perhaps it does. Also Russua's sheer size, wealth of raw mterials and population (however drunk) must likewise be factored in. Meanwhile, western sanctions have not really had the impact we'd hoped, mainly because Russia is being supported by China, which is providing technology, and is also helping Russia to export oil and gas, and bypass sanctions via friendly 3rd countries, etc
By PPP China is, of course, the most powerful economy on earth, as well as the world's biggest trader, and 2nd largest nation by sheer size (just behind India, which appears neutral in this war)
We may have reached a geopolitical inflection point where we butt up against the limits of western power
So Russia is an impoverished, sanctioned backswater compared to the economic might of NATO combined?
And exactly what profound resilience has Russia shown?
It went in expecting to overpower Kyiv in days.
It's now hiding behind landmines as it's too scared of Ukraine to fight directly and is trying desperately to cling on to that which it has gained.
If Russia were "strong" as claimed it would be seeking to keep conquering lands until the whole of Ukraine has fallen. Not desperately hoping for a stalemate.
Why is every response you make so histrionic and emotional?
I'm not averse to drunkne hyperbole myself, but there's a time and place. Argue the points, don't just emote
LOL that has to win top prize of projectionism ever. You calling others histrionic and emotional ...
I did argue the points. The point is Russia is not strong. The point is Russia is hiding hoping that landmines or an armistice allow it to hold on to what they have seized as they know they're too weak to keep fighting directly.
Russia is not a powerful bear. It's not a world conquering army. And they absolutely can be defeated.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Why would we? China is not Russia.
China has no love for the West but it also has no love lost for Russia. They're rivals not allies in the East. That's why while we have been pumping arms into Ukraine, China have barely lifted a finger.
China in the 20th century had to play second fiddle to Russia/USSR. China is interested in China and it wants Chinese hegemony in the East, to which Russia is a threat.
Russia still occupies much former Chinese territory that China covets.
Seeking Russia ground down and losing its power status is in China's own strategic interests. A humble, defeated Russia falling under China's sphere of influence, in the East at least, if not acquiring some Russia land directly is absolutely fine for China.
Do more reading
"China’s support may not be ‘lethal aid,’ but it’s vital to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine"
"China helps Russia evade sanctions and likely most supplies tech used in Ukraine, U.S. report says Chinese state-owned defense firms have shipped navigation equipment, fighter jet parts and other dual-use technology to Russian defense companies, a U.S. intelligence report said."
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
The West is due for a shock as the world moves away from being US\Europe centred to Asia\Africa.
It means the likes of Rory Stewart cab no longer waitz about the world and tell the peasants what to do. The world is reshaping and the West needs to work out how to deal with 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.
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.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
The Korean War lasted years with an insurgency where the locals opposed America.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
I would draw the line at our troops actually overtly fighting. That is the line that has been drawn since World War II.
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
Fair enough
My feeling is there might come a point when we need to take Ukraine aside and give them honest advice
It's a bit like watching a brave friend taking on a horrible bully three times his size. You cheer on your friend, you support him as much as you can, but what if it looks like the only way he can fight the bully off is by fighting so hard and desperately he loses both eyes, one arm, a leg and gets brain damage from the battering?
Is that really "winning"?
A good friend and ally gives support and assistance, but also truthful opinions, even if they are uncomfortable
But Russia isn't a bully three times Ukraine's size.
It's a weak, impoverished, decrepit, sanctioned nation without good logistics or ability to replenish it's forces, hiding behind layers of landmines in order to avoid losing the land it has illegally and temporarily seized.
Hmm
There was an excellent article in the NYT recently which discussed measures of economic might (which feeds into military might), specifically GDP nominal versus GDP by PPP
The writer posited the idea that this war is showing that GDP by PPP is more important when assessing miltary strength
On GDP nominal Russia is relatiely weedy: down at 11th, behind Canada and Italy, and way behind Germany, UK, France
Does this explain Russia's unexpected resilience and strength after so many profound setbacks? Perhaps it does. Also Russua's sheer size, wealth of raw mterials and population (however drunk) must likewise be factored in. Meanwhile, western sanctions have not really had the impact we'd hoped, mainly because Russia is being supported by China, which is providing technology, and is also helping Russia to export oil and gas, and bypass sanctions via friendly 3rd countries, etc
By PPP China is, of course, the most powerful economy on earth, as well as the world's biggest trader, and 2nd largest nation by sheer size (just behind India, which appears neutral in this war)
We may have reached a geopolitical inflection point where we butt up against the limits of western power
So Russia is an impoverished, sanctioned backswater compared to the economic might of NATO combined?
And exactly what profound resilience has Russia shown?
It went in expecting to overpower Kyiv in days.
It's now hiding behind landmines as it's too scared of Ukraine to fight directly and is trying desperately to cling on to that which it has gained.
If Russia were "strong" as claimed it would be seeking to keep conquering lands until the whole of Ukraine has fallen. Not desperately hoping for a stalemate.
Why is every response you make so histrionic and emotional?
I'm not averse to drunkne hyperbole myself, but there's a time and place. Argue the points, don't just emote
Are we going to get a prolonged bout of your needling pessimism vs his gung ho posturing?
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Why would we? China is not Russia.
China has no love for the West but it also has no love lost for Russia. They're rivals not allies in the East. That's why while we have been pumping arms into Ukraine, China have barely lifted a finger.
China in the 20th century had to play second fiddle to Russia/USSR. China is interested in China and it wants Chinese hegemony in the East, to which Russia is a threat.
Russia still occupies much former Chinese territory that China covets.
Seeking Russia ground down and losing its power status is in China's own strategic interests. A humble, defeated Russia falling under China's sphere of influence, in the East at least, if not acquiring some Russia land directly is absolutely fine for China.
Do more reading
"China’s support may not be ‘lethal aid,’ but it’s vital to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine"
"China helps Russia evade sanctions and likely most supplies tech used in Ukraine, U.S. report says Chinese state-owned defense firms have shipped navigation equipment, fighter jet parts and other dual-use technology to Russian defense companies, a U.S. intelligence report said."
China is trying to make a quick buck where it can, that's not new. But it is not using it's military industrial complex to send billions of munitions into Russia like NATO is. These things are different by an order of magnitude.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
But. Hasn't happened yet.
Ukraine keep on pointing out that Russia is still producing missiles made with Western components. If we have new chips going into Russian missiles you'd think there would be some subterfuge that could be employed to have the missiles return to sender, or detonate aloft, etc, but it hasn't happened.
You get the sense that the West hasn't fully committed to a Russian defeat.
There was a book I read, a long time back, about how MI6 recruited all the shady arms salesmen to not quite sell stuff to the Argentines during the Falklands War. Wasted vast amounts of Argentine money and time on weapons that never quite arrived.
Right. So MI6 not having such a good war then. Surely they should have been investing in the Krygyrz logistics industry so that Western components somehow got lost on their way to Russia?
I've been impressed with how Iranian and Pakistani artillery ammunition has ended up in Ukrainian hands, despite the friendliness of both governments towards Russia - clearly some good work on the shady parts of the international arms markets going on - but to have newly manufactured Russian missiles still have dozens of Western components? Something going wrong there.
We don't know. Nor will we, for years. There are reports of all kinds of shortages in the Russian industrial supply chain - which have hammered tank production, for example.
For all we know the Russians are getting prompt delivery of tools that help do this -
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Bit early for you to be drunk, isn't it?
This is really fecking tiresome. In what way is my pointing out a simple fact of global economics, somehow evidence that I am "drunk"?
The idea that the West ever had untrammelled power is not supported by the facts.
Russian can’t win a war against *Ukraine* - which is being supported with NATOs odd socks and stuff that was in the garage sale. The American contribution is a few percent of their military spending.
The West probably never had total military supremacy, unless you count the weird brief years from 1945-1949 when the US was the only nation with nukes
But have we ever had total economic supremacy? Absolutely. And for two centuries at least, from 1800 or so to about 2000-2010, first via the Birtish Empire, then the American empire, along with massive western advantages in all kinds of technology
Nearly all that advantage has now gone. We were once able to impose our will on the world, and shape it, via economics if not arms. We can't do that any more. It is an enormous change
This is one of the principle reasons I resent Musk's owernership of Twitter.
Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty A Nature survey reveals scientists’ reasons for leaving the social-media platform now known as X, and what they are doing to build and maintain a sense of community. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02554-0
Here's a question for WW II experts. Were the "flail tanks" of that era effective? Would more of them for Ukraine make sense, militarily? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail
Is it possible to produce them quickly? Even better, can we produce remote-controlled anti-mine vehicles, quickly?
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Why would we? China is not Russia.
China has no love for the West but it also has no love lost for Russia. They're rivals not allies in the East. That's why while we have been pumping arms into Ukraine, China have barely lifted a finger.
China in the 20th century had to play second fiddle to Russia/USSR. China is interested in China and it wants Chinese hegemony in the East, to which Russia is a threat.
Russia still occupies much former Chinese territory that China covets.
Seeking Russia ground down and losing its power status is in China's own strategic interests. A humble, defeated Russia falling under China's sphere of influence, in the East at least, if not acquiring some Russia land directly is absolutely fine for China.
Do more reading
"China’s support may not be ‘lethal aid,’ but it’s vital to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine"
"China helps Russia evade sanctions and likely most supplies tech used in Ukraine, U.S. report says Chinese state-owned defense firms have shipped navigation equipment, fighter jet parts and other dual-use technology to Russian defense companies, a U.S. intelligence report said."
China is trying to make a quick buck where it can, that's not new. But it is not using it's military industrial complex to send billions of munitions into Russia like NATO is. These things are different by an order of magnitude.
You claimed that China wasn't "lifting a finger" to help Russia
I proved that this is laughably wrong, with multiple citations (unlike you)
You merely bloviate and emote, and you do it without wit, humour or insight. This is a ridiculous waste of my precious time, I am off to do some work. Anon
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Well this is meant to be the Chinese Century - which I take to mean the period where they supplant the US as the world's biggest banana.
It’s going to be a very interesting race: between demographics (which favour the US), momentum (which favours China) and strategy (which remains all to play for). A race China should win easily but may take a little longer to get there. And could conceivably lose again later in the century.
In PPP it already is: China has overtaken the US. In dollars it isn’t yet.
Chinese GDP according to the World Bank was $17.9trn last year. US GDP was $25.5trn.
If China grows at 6% per annum and the US by 2% then in 9 years they will pass each other. But if China’s growth rate falls even a couple of percentage points it could take a much longer time. By which point the shrinking population could start to tell. Especially if net migration into the US keeps up.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
But. Hasn't happened yet.
Ukraine keep on pointing out that Russia is still producing missiles made with Western components. If we have new chips going into Russian missiles you'd think there would be some subterfuge that could be employed to have the missiles return to sender, or detonate aloft, etc, but it hasn't happened.
You get the sense that the West hasn't fully committed to a Russian defeat.
There was a book I read, a long time back, about how MI6 recruited all the shady arms salesmen to not quite sell stuff to the Argentines during the Falklands War. Wasted vast amounts of Argentine money and time on weapons that never quite arrived.
Right. So MI6 not having such a good war then. Surely they should have been investing in the Krygyrz logistics industry so that Western components somehow got lost on their way to Russia?
I've been impressed with how Iranian and Pakistani artillery ammunition has ended up in Ukrainian hands, despite the friendliness of both governments towards Russia - clearly some good work on the shady parts of the international arms markets going on - but to have newly manufactured Russian missiles still have dozens of Western components? Something going wrong there.
We don't know. Nor will we, for years. There are reports of all kinds of shortages in the Russian industrial supply chain - which have hammered tank production, for example.
For all we know the Russians are getting prompt delivery of tools that help do this -
Oh come on. They have an unlimited supply of world-beating tools.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Bit early for you to be drunk, isn't it?
This is really fecking tiresome. In what way is my pointing out a simple fact of global economics, somehow evidence that I am "drunk"?
The idea that the West ever had untrammelled power is not supported by the facts.
Russian can’t win a war against *Ukraine* - which is being supported with NATOs odd socks and stuff that was in the garage sale. The American contribution is a few percent of their military spending.
The West probably never had total military supremacy, unless you count the weird brief years from 1945-1949 when the US was the only nation with nukes
But have we ever had total economic supremacy? Absolutely. And for two centuries at least, from 1800 or so to about 2000-2010, first via the Birtish Empire, then the American empire, along with massive western advantages in all kinds of technology
Nearly all that advantage has now gone. We were once able to impose our will on the world, and shape it, via economics if not arms. We can't do that any more. It is an enormous change
I'd argue we had near military supremacy, if not military supremacy, from the fall of Communis to (say) 2010. Or about thirty years. As we've seen, Russia's military rapidly became a basketcase.
As for economics: it probably depends on who 'we' are in the 'West'. The disintegration of the USSR has led to a massive diminution of their GDP, and large parts of their GDP coming into Europe, and therefore the 'west''s sphere of influence. The west's economic influence may be very strong still.
IMV it's not purely about China; it's about India and other large developing countries, especially in Africa.
Comments
Had the Keeper thrown the ball after the ball was settled and after Barstow started going down the pitch then that'd be awful, but it's not what happened.
Sorry but switching off your attention is gaining an advantage too. Paying attention is draining, and players need to do it as long as the ball is alive. Barstow didn't. Had he looked at the Keeper he'd have known not to set off down the pitch. As a player it's ridiculous, as a a Keeper himself it's inexcusable.
He could of course be meaningfully defeated very rapidly by direct NATO action were it not for the fear of nuclear weapons. Nuclear blackmail has worked - of course it works. But it's a very dangerous precedent.
This hasn't lasted years and the locals are opposing Russia.
Not the same thing. If Ukraine can't win with what we've given them so far, we should give them more. They don't have air superiority yet, they might next summer with enough planes and training.
As you say he’s a ‘keeper himself, Johnny really should have known better than to put himself in that position.
I had similar. Went to University, came back at Christmas and my dad had cleared out most of my miniatures and my White Dwarf collection.
Hence @Cyclefree's illustrious career
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/16/andrew-malkinson-rape-police-dna-evidence-cps-justice/
Would you send NATO troops to fight, directly, for Ukraine?
If it is that important "we" win, then you surely would. It might be the only way to defeat Putin, and drive him out of Ukraine entirely
What is the breaking point before *everyone* is making their own miniatures rather than pay the prices? And someone creates a game ecosystem where paying sagans for bits of plastics is *not* a thing?
Went off to college and after a couple of term’s decided that I’d like my microscope rather than the college’s.
Went home, looked for my microscope, to be told my father had given it to one of his friends.
So why not just bog their largely failed operation down indefinetly, swallowing up all their resources?
(Or even malicious prosecution, given the possible exculpatory evidence which the prosecution failed to share with his defence at the time of the original trial.)
Anything short of that line: intelligence, training, support, munitions, weaponry are all on the table.
The USSR and USA and others have equipped and supported the others enemies in conflicts for the past nearly 80 years. That is the rules of engagement, you can equip and train proxies or allies, but no direct engagement.
This is a straightforward invasion of a sovereign country.
So you won't ever have everyone home printing, and the market may settle at a point where the printing is done at a local print shop/game store for most people. I gave up on having a home (paper) printer for a while, and printed out the few things I really needed at the library. Wonder how many people have a paper printer at home?
There are game systems built around home printing, but they're relatively small at the moment. One page rules is the one I'm most familiar with. They operate on a model of providing free rules, a patreon subscription for new digital files every month, or selling individual files. They also sell commercial licenses to people to print the files and sell the models on to others.
See: onepagerules.com
But those machines are still rare and nobody does commercial recycling suitable for discarded 3D prints, so they go to landfill mostly.
So I can get an abstract shape printed in by a company - but most of what they chargé is setup, finishing, and all the touch work.
The fascinating bit is the slow dissemination of better printers at the hobbyist prices.
Which will have other knock on effects in society.
Gun Jesus on coil guns - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwHRjgVWFno
You could make everything in that with 3D printing, buy some anodyne electrical components, and hand wind the coils.
I use an Epson EcoTank, and it's blooming brilliant. My old printer's ink was so expensive that I did not use it often. This meant that the heads needed cleaning/aligning to get a good print, which would use up some of the ink.
EcoTank ink is relatively cheap, and lasts an age, whilst the print quality is more than good enough for my purposes. It's really made my printer a useful object once again.
My feeling is there might come a point when we need to take Ukraine aside and give them honest advice
It's a bit like watching a brave friend taking on a horrible bully three times his size. You cheer on your friend, you support him as much as you can, but what if it looks like the only way he can fight the bully off is by fighting so hard and desperately he loses both eyes, one arm, a leg and gets brain damage from the battering?
Is that really "winning"?
A good friend and ally gives support and assistance, but also truthful opinions, even if they are uncomfortable
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1691799606777040908
Daily reminder
1. Complex weapons such as the WMD/delivery systems include precise parts
2. Production of precise parts relies on subtractive processes
3. Which had overwhelmingly relied on the manual control even in 1991
4. But have been radically computerized since then...
14. Domestic production = assembling machines from the European/Japanese components
15. There is almost zero Russian components in Russia-produced machines
16. (Except for beddings, casings, some non precision bearings, etc)
17. Everything requiring precision is imported...
20. Consistently, the Russian military manufacturing base consists of:
First and foremost, Western European
Then, Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean
And to a far lesser degree North American equipment
These are the machines that secure Russian capacity to produce weaponry.
As recently as June 21 we had a destroyer floating around Crimea.
I feel like the West should have the economic and military strength to be able to provide Ukraine with the supplies, equipment and training it requires to defeat the Russian Army.
If we're not, or not willing to do so, I think that has massive geopolitical repercussions which will be extremely negative.
It's in part a litmus test of whether there's any advantage in being friendly with the West, or if countries should look elsewhere for security assistance.
It's a weak, impoverished, decrepit, sanctioned nation without good logistics or ability to replenish it's forces, hiding behind layers of landmines in order to avoid losing the land it has illegally and temporarily seized.
O&G industry, Russia’s primary source of hard currency, will be particularly badly affected - yet another reason for OPEC to drive the price down in the short term.
For example.
Start with abolishing this imbecile (or cunning) exemption in the EU sanction regime
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1691822864834396225
Russia's forces are continuously deteriorating. They lack the capability under sanctions to replace that which they are losing, let alone improve their forces.
As long as the West holds it's nerve, momemtum in this war is going one way. Logistics wins wars and Russia doesn't have it.
Hence the desperation of their proxies suggesting we should just call this a draw now and go into a frozen conflict. Because they know Russia isn't capable of pushing on, but Ukraine is.
If you try to fall back on the logic of the Cold War then you end up in a contradiction where Ukraine is simultaneously 'us' and 'not us'.
(Yes, let’s see sanctions on equipment parts and servicing made much tighter).
Ukraine keep on pointing out that Russia is still producing missiles made with Western components. If we have new chips going into Russian missiles you'd think there would be some subterfuge that could be employed to have the missiles return to sender, or detonate aloft, etc, but it hasn't happened.
You get the sense that the West hasn't fully committed to a Russian defeat.
There was an excellent article in the NYT recently which discussed measures of economic might (which feeds into military might), specifically GDP nominal versus GDP by PPP
The writer posited the idea that this war is showing that GDP by PPP is more important when assessing miltary strength
On GDP nominal Russia is relatiely weedy: down at 11th, behind Canada and Italy, and way behind Germany, UK, France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
However on GDP by PPP Russia is bigger than any European nation apart from Germany (it is almost as big as Germany) and is 6th in the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
Does this explain Russia's unexpected resilience and strength after so many profound setbacks? Perhaps it does. Also Russia's sheer size, wealth of raw materials and population (however drunk) must likewise be factored in. Meanwhile, western sanctions have not really had the impact we'd hoped, mainly because Russia is being supported by China, which is providing technology, and is also helping Russia to export oil and gas, and is helping Moscow bypass sanctions via friendly 3rd countries, etc
By PPP China is, of course, the most powerful economy on earth, as well as the world's biggest trader, and 2nd largest nation by sheer size (just behind India, which appears neutral in this war)
We may have reached a geopolitical inflection point where we butt up against the limits of western power
Coming to a car near you, quite soon.
The only reason it hasn't been more of thing in the car world, is that Tesla, who pioneered rolling out much of the idea of centralised computers in cars, over the air updates etc haven't been really heavy handed with it yet.
The biggest one I recall was a chap who rebuilt a crashed Tesla, only to find that it was in their database as written off - it was a write off by the insurance company. So his Tesla can't charge at a Tesla supercharger.
https://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=John+Deere Dozens of articles about Deere, from a computing blog.
I've been impressed with how Iranian and Pakistani artillery ammunition has ended up in Ukrainian hands, despite the friendliness of both governments towards Russia - clearly some good work on the shady parts of the international arms markets going on - but to have newly manufactured Russian missiles still have dozens of Western components? Something going wrong there.
And exactly what profound resilience has Russia shown?
It went in expecting to overpower Kyiv in days.
It's now hiding behind landmines as it's too scared of Ukraine to fight directly and is trying desperately to cling on to that which it has gained.
If Russia were "strong" as claimed it would be seeking to keep conquering lands until the whole of Ukraine has fallen. Not desperately hoping for a stalemate.
https://www.kew.org/kew-gardens/whats-in-the-gardens/the-great-pagoda
The non-West is now as economically powerful as the West, mainly because of China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
I'm not averse to drunkne hyperbole myself, but there's a time and place. Argue the points, don't just emote
If you make a widget in the millions, and sell to third party distributors, it can be next to impossible to say where they'll end up. These may be components that sell for a couple of quid, and they only need one per plane.
Then there's the fakes as well: an Irish company called Tillotson has components in Russian UAVs; but they claim that they're actually Chinese fakes - something they've apparently had trouble with in the past.
There are problems with Russia relying on the grey market. When a computer chip is made - particularly 'interesting' ones - they go through a grading process after they are made, called binning. The military pay *a lot* extra for their chips, to ensure they get the 'best' ones for their purpose. And when I say a lot, it can be orders of magnitude more - because they can require lots of extra tests. The Russians will *not* be getting the best chips, and perhaps even ones that only just scraped through the consumer tests. The sweepings off the foundry floor, perhaps.
China has no love for the West but it also has no love lost for Russia. They're rivals not allies in the East. That's why while we have been pumping arms into Ukraine, China have barely lifted a finger.
China in the 20th century had to play second fiddle to Russia/USSR. China is interested in China and it wants Chinese hegemony in the East, to which Russia is a threat.
Russia still occupies much former Chinese territory that China covets.
Seeking Russia ground down and losing its power status is in China's own strategic interests. A humble, defeated Russia falling under China's sphere of influence, in the East at least, if not acquiring some Russia land directly is absolutely fine for China.
Russian can’t win a war against *Ukraine* - which is being supported with NATOs odd socks and stuff that was in the garage sale. The American contribution is a few percent of their military spending.
https://www.marketplace.org/2023/07/17/is-gdp-still-a-useful-gauge-of-chinas-economy/
I did argue the points. The point is Russia is not strong. The point is Russia is hiding hoping that landmines or an armistice allow it to hold on to what they have seized as they know they're too weak to keep fighting directly.
Russia is not a powerful bear. It's not a world conquering army. And they absolutely can be defeated.
https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/club-statement-on-mason-greenwood-16-august-2023
"China’s support may not be ‘lethal aid,’ but it’s vital to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine"
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/chinas-support-may-not-be-lethal-aid-but-its-vital-to-russias-aggression-in-ukraine/
"How China Could Save Putin’s War in Ukraine
The Logic—and Consequences—of Chinese Military Support for Russia"
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/how-china-could-save-putins-war-ukraine
"China agreed to secretly arm Russia, leaked Pentagon documents reveal
Intercept of Russian intelligence shows Beijing wanted to disguise lethal aid as civilian items, says report"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/14/china-agreed-secretly-arm-russia-leaked-pentagon-documents-reveal
This just two weeks ago:
"China helps Russia evade sanctions and likely most supplies tech used in Ukraine, U.S. report says
Chinese state-owned defense firms have shipped navigation equipment, fighter jet parts and other dual-use technology to Russian defense companies, a U.S. intelligence report said."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/china-helps-russia-evade-sanctions-tech-used-ukraine-war-rcna96693
It means the likes of Rory Stewart cab no longer waitz about the world and tell the peasants what to do. The world is reshaping and the West needs to work out how to deal with it.
That'll be great.
Two seventeen year olds, waiting to pay at the self service.
I ask if they're going to use the till that's just become free.
'Nah, we're waiting for the ones that take cash,' came the reply.
China is trying to make a quick buck where it can, that's not new. But it is not using it's military industrial complex to send billions of munitions into Russia like NATO is. These things are different by an order of magnitude.
For all we know the Russians are getting prompt delivery of tools that help do this -
But have we ever had total economic supremacy? Absolutely. And for two centuries at least, from 1800 or so to about 2000-2010, first via the Birtish Empire, then the American empire, along with massive western advantages in all kinds of technology
Nearly all that advantage has now gone. We were once able to impose our will on the world, and shape it, via economics if not arms. We can't do that any more. It is an enormous change
Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty
A Nature survey reveals scientists’ reasons for leaving the social-media platform now known as X, and what they are doing to build and maintain a sense of community.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02554-0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail
Is it possible to produce them quickly? Even better, can we produce remote-controlled anti-mine vehicles, quickly?
(Ukraine already has a few: https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukraine-receives-german-mine-clearing-tanks/ )
I proved that this is laughably wrong, with multiple citations (unlike you)
You merely bloviate and emote, and you do it without wit, humour or insight. This is a ridiculous waste of my precious time, I am off to do some work. Anon
In PPP it already is: China has overtaken the US. In dollars it isn’t yet.
Chinese GDP according to the World Bank was $17.9trn last year. US GDP was $25.5trn.
If China grows at 6% per annum and the US by 2% then in 9 years they will pass each other. But if China’s growth rate falls even a couple of percentage points it could take a much longer time. By which point the shrinking population could start to tell. Especially if net migration into the US keeps up.
Putin, Lavrov, Medvedev, Trump...
As for economics: it probably depends on who 'we' are in the 'West'. The disintegration of the USSR has led to a massive diminution of their GDP, and large parts of their GDP coming into Europe, and therefore the 'west''s sphere of influence. The west's economic influence may be very strong still.
IMV it's not purely about China; it's about India and other large developing countries, especially in Africa.