Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
No, it's what happens when you argue on the internet. You draw up non existent battle lines ("the anti-car brigade"), you promote cheesy movie lines to Eternal Verities ("life has risk, death is a natural part of life") from which you then argue individual cases, like the deaths of under 5 year old RTA victims, without acknowledging that, for instance, half the legislation on the statute book is designed to minimise risk and stave off death, and your level of zoom is locked at the point where it sees you happily driving your Octavia around Greater Manchester and you cannot conceive of things being any other way.
In fact cars are ridiculously dangerous, expensive and resource-intensive things, and there is no way we can continue to afford them; especially if, as you presumably want, the developing world's living standards rise to match ours. It is magical thinking to believe that converting them from horrid dirty ICE to magic techie shiny electric waves away these fundamental problems. They are on the way out. This may be incredible to you, but have a read of When William Came by Saki, 1913. It's a Man In The High Castle novel about England after German conquest, and one of the most appalling things Saki can imagine is that "No weapons other than guns for specified sporting purposes, duly declared and registered and open to inspection when required, could be owned, purchased, or carried." What happened next?
What an extraordinary argument. And rather shocking that two users of the site have 'liked' it.
Which bit? Are you saying that humans have always had cars, always will have, and any suggestion to the contrary is deranged fantasy?
I'm saying that humans have always striven toward greater freedom, wellbeing, and prosperity, always will do, and any suggestion to the contrary is a deranged fantasy. That includes personal transportation.
No they haven't. Thirty years ago I could board a plane with a knife in my pocket and - gasp - over 100ml of shampoo in my bag, and light a cigarette straight after take off. up to 1965 you could drive as fast as your car allowed, outside cities. up to 2003 you could have a drink, and sail a boat. The government has now legislated that if I want to buy a new ICE car after 2030 and somebody wants to sell me one, we are not allowed to. Your imagination seems not to be up to the task of conceiving that sentence with ICE omitted. Your freedoms have been massively eroded, and I absolutely guarantee that the things Luckyguy2083 is allowed to do will be a lot less than what you are.
There seems to be a pretty healthy debate on Ukraine today that doesn't involve vituperative (nice word) shutting down of arguments.
Actually quite surprising we don't have at least 2 or 3 parallel debates going on. Not even on LTNs or housebuilding.
As Dura points out most of the so called popular front for the liberation of Ukraine (aka people who don't trust any assurances Russia might give in a future peace deal) are not into vituperation. I assume I'm considered part of that camp, and I don't come on here with the purpose of insulting or having enjoyable snarky banter. It's a matter of taste - some people enjoy it, some don't. I come here because there's an interesting range of opinions and experience.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
You seem to spend far more time saying you're not allowed to give your view on Ukraine than giving your view on Ukraine. In fact this seems to be your main view on Ukraine - that you can't give it.
You first.
My view? Russia will take an awful lot of shifting from Ukraine. It'll be a long and bloody process and much as I want to see them defeated and driven out it probably won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon.
Your view is more 'out there', is it? Guess it must be. Therefore I'd be interested to hear it (truly) and you shouldn't be shy. No way will I get 'vituperative' about it and call you a 'Putin apologist' or anything similarly stupid.
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
Of course it will. The question is under what conditions. And that is where people differ. The danger is rewarding bad behaviour and encouraging more of it.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
Of course it will. The question is under what conditions. And that is where people differ. The danger is rewarding bad behaviour and encouraging more of it.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
You seem to spend far more time saying you're not allowed to give your view on Ukraine than giving your view on Ukraine. In fact this seems to be your main view on Ukraine - that you can't give it.
You first.
My view? Russia will take an awful lot of shifting from Ukraine. It'll be a long and bloody process and much as I want to see them defeated and driven out it probably won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon.
Your view is more 'out there', is it? Guess it must be. Therefore I'd be interested to hear it (truly) and you shouldn't be shy. No way will I get 'vituperative' about it and call you a 'Putin apologist' or anything similarly stupid.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
Ukraine may, however, invade Russia. Indeed, it will probably need to, both to bypass the minefields and in order to have something worth trading at the negotiating table that it's not too bothered about losing.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
It doesn't appear to have anything to do with lockdown. As the report states, "The number remains in line with the recent trend of decreasing live births seen before the #COVID19 pandemic."
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Who could have thought that you’d fail to read the words “in line with the trend of decreasing live births seems before the #COVID19 pandemic”?
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
Of course it will. The question is under what conditions. And that is where people differ. The danger is rewarding bad behaviour and encouraging more of it.
What do you think will happen?
I think if Russia is kicked out of Ukrainian territory then the negotiated settlement will be that Russia agrees to recognise Ukraine's borders. Russia won't lose any of its own territory either (which does not of course include Crimea).
I think if they're not, then a negotiated settlement is much less likely and we might end up with what is far worse, a frozen conflict like Korea.
So doing whatever it takes to support Ukraine makes an acceptable negotiated settlement more likely, not less likely.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Preventing them from owning their own homes until they're 50 might have even more to do with it.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Preventing them from owning their own homes until they're 50 might have even more to do with it.
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
Of course it will. The question is under what conditions. And that is where people differ. The danger is rewarding bad behaviour and encouraging more of it.
What do you think will happen?
I think if Russia is kicked out of Ukrainian territory then the negotiated settlement will be that Russia agrees to recognise Ukraine's borders. Russia won't lose any of its own territory either (which does not of course include Crimea).
I think if they're not, then a negotiated settlement is much less likely and we might end up with what is far worse, a frozen conflict like Korea.
So doing whatever it takes to support Ukraine makes an acceptable negotiated settlement more likely, not less likely.
Cannot see that happening without Putin being removed in which case you roll the dice
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
A minor correction… There were Soviet military personnel actively engaged in the Korean War, notably pilots.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
Well, Korea has required support for close to 70 years now as that conflict never ended. Is that what you want?
I hope we don't need to support Ukraine for 70 years, but if its what we take, I have no objection to supporting them that long.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Preventing them from owning their own homes until they're 50 might have even more to do with it.
There will be a bit of a signal from the Spring 2021 lockdown, but yes. Making it harder for young people to settle down over a decade explains a lot more of the graph.
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
The German invasions of France in 1914 and 1940 both ended with negotiated settlements, so that covers a vast range of possibilities.
Neither of those points is right, really. The 'settlements' were imposed in 1919 and 1940, with the defeated party unable to resist terms and no negotiations meaningful of the name took place. Obviously, if you extend the 1940 invasion through to 1945, there was explicitly no deal done: 'unconditional surrender' was demanded, and given.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Preventing them from owning their own homes until they're 50 might have even more to do with it.
The Tories think I’m brainwashed and woke. Instead of hearing my concerns they call me dumb.
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
Of course it will. The question is under what conditions. And that is where people differ. The danger is rewarding bad behaviour and encouraging more of it.
What do you think will happen?
I think if Russia is kicked out of Ukrainian territory then the negotiated settlement will be that Russia agrees to recognise Ukraine's borders. Russia won't lose any of its own territory either (which does not of course include Crimea).
I think if they're not, then a negotiated settlement is much less likely and we might end up with what is far worse, a frozen conflict like Korea.
So doing whatever it takes to support Ukraine makes an acceptable negotiated settlement more likely, not less likely.
Cannot see that happening without Putin being removed in which case you roll the dice
Then we roll the dice.
The dice will be rolled whenever Putin leaves, its what happens whenever a dictator falls. Not a reason not to do the right thing.
Do you accept that Ukraine has been able to liberate some of its territory already?
If so, do you accept that Ukraine has the potential to liberate more, or all, of its occupied territory? Just as its already liberated some?
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
The German invasions of France in 1914 and 1940 both ended with negotiated settlements, so that covers a vast range of possibilities.
Neither of those points is right, really. The 'settlements' were imposed in 1919 and 1940, with the defeated party unable to resist terms and no negotiations meaningful of the name took place. Obviously, if you extend the 1940 invasion through to 1945, there was explicitly no deal done: 'unconditional surrender' was demanded, and given.
I'm liking that because I like it and also you would have been stuck on 666 of them otherwise.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
You seem to spend far more time saying you're not allowed to give your view on Ukraine than giving your view on Ukraine. In fact this seems to be your main view on Ukraine - that you can't give it.
You first.
My view? Russia will take an awful lot of shifting from Ukraine. It'll be a long and bloody process and much as I want to see them defeated and driven out it probably won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon.
Your view is more 'out there', is it? Guess it must be. Therefore I'd be interested to hear it (truly) and you shouldn't be shy. No way will I get 'vituperative' about it and call you a 'Putin apologist' or anything similarly stupid.
My view is as obvious, facile, and banal as yours.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
We can almost certainly support them for longer than the Russians can support themselves, and so long as the Ukranians are willing to keep up the fight that’s the right thing to do.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
We can almost certainly support them for longer than the Russians can support themselves, and so long as the Ukranians are willing to keep up the fight that’s the right thing to do.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Other way round. Covid lockdown forced young couples to entertain themselves at home, causing an upward tick in births. Letting them out again resumed the downward trend.
There seems to be a pretty healthy debate on Ukraine today that doesn't involve vituperative (nice word) shutting down of arguments.
Actually quite surprising we don't have at least 2 or 3 parallel debates going on. Not even on LTNs or housebuilding.
As Dura points out most of the so called popular front for the liberation of Ukraine (aka people who don't trust any assurances Russia might give in a future peace deal) are not into vituperation.
I didn't say that they were not into it, just that they are fucking crap at it.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
A minor correction… There were Soviet military personnel actively engaged in the Korean War, notably pilots.
The korean war was weird. The USSR did not vote against it in the Security Council and the was was a US-led UN coalition against the North Koreans. MacArthur drove them nearly back to the NK/China border, until the Chinese said "fuck it" and invaded Korea, forcing the UN forces back down to the present border.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Preventing them from owning their own homes until they're 50 might have even more to do with it.
There will be a bit of a signal from the Spring 2021 lockdown, but yes. Making it harder for young people to settle down over a decade explains a lot more of the graph.
Build more houses. Millions more houses, support new ways to build houses, make the planning process much simpler, support more remote work and tax incentives to move businesses to areas of cheaper housing.
The cost of housing is the single biggest issue holding the UK back.
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
The German invasions of France in 1914 and 1940 both ended with negotiated settlements, so that covers a vast range of possibilities.
Neither of those points is right, really. The 'settlements' were imposed in 1919 and 1940, with the defeated party unable to resist terms and no negotiations meaningful of the name took place. Obviously, if you extend the 1940 invasion through to 1945, there was explicitly no deal done: 'unconditional surrender' was demanded, and given.
The German observer Brockdorff-Rantzau at the Versailles conference was so furious at the terms he refused to sign them. He left the room, and the German government collapsed. The new government under Bauer had to order him back into the room under instructions from Ebert who pointed out 'we've got no choice.'
Which has always struck me as ironic because twelve months earlier Trotsky and Lenin had played out an almost identical drama over Brest-Litovsk...which was imposed by the Germans.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
Well, Korea has required support for close to 70 years now as that conflict never ended. Is that what you want?
I hope we don't need to support Ukraine for 70 years, but if its what we take, I have no objection to supporting them that long.
Good of you to make commitments from beyond the grave there. Are you going to have yourself wired up Weekend at Bernie’s style to help out in 2093?
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
We can almost certainly support them for longer than the Russians can support themselves, and so long as the Ukranians are willing to keep up the fight that’s the right thing to do.
What is the limit on supporting them?
My opinion - No nukes, no visibly active forces of our own troops.
What limit should we have in your opinion? And why?
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
We can almost certainly support them for longer than the Russians can support themselves, and so long as the Ukranians are willing to keep up the fight that’s the right thing to do.
What is the limit on supporting them?
When the Ukranians decide they’ve had enough of war, then we should stop supporting them in war and support them in peace.
It’s not in Europe’s interest to have an angry imperial bear on their doorstep, so if the Ukranians want to fight the orcs we should all help them out.
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
The German invasions of France in 1914 and 1940 both ended with negotiated settlements, so that covers a vast range of possibilities.
Neither of those points is right, really. The 'settlements' were imposed in 1919 and 1940, with the defeated party unable to resist terms and no negotiations meaningful of the name took place. Obviously, if you extend the 1940 invasion through to 1945, there was explicitly no deal done: 'unconditional surrender' was demanded, and given.
The German observer Brockdorff-Rantzau at the Versailles conference was so furious at the terms he refused to sign them. He left the room, and the German government collapsed. The new government under Bauer had to order him back into the room under instructions from Ebert who pointed out 'we've got no choice.'
Which has always struck me as ironic because twelve months earlier Trotsky and Lenin had played out an almost identical drama over Brest-Litovsk...which was imposed by the Germans.
Quite.
This mantra that 'all wars end in negotiations' is a lot more complex than it sounds (unsurprisingly). In fact, the number of wars that end with meaningful negotiations, where the two (or more) sides are able to genuinely bargain over substantive issues isn't all that high. More often, particularly in the 20th century, we see one side imposing terms, or a frozen stalemate, or some combination of the two where one side 'wins' but there's no formal agreement to end the conflict, it just winds down de facto because one side has achieved its objectives and the other can't resist, or feels it's not worth the effort.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
We can almost certainly support them for longer than the Russians can support themselves, and so long as the Ukranians are willing to keep up the fight that’s the right thing to do.
What is the limit on supporting them?
When the Ukranians decide they’ve had enough of war, then we should stop supporting them in war and support them in peace.
It’s not in Europe’s interest to have an angry imperial bear on their doorstep, so if the Ukranians want to fight the orcs we should all help them out.
I meant how much support should we give them? Troops? Weapons? What?
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
We can almost certainly support them for longer than the Russians can support themselves, and so long as the Ukranians are willing to keep up the fight that’s the right thing to do.
What is the limit on supporting them?
My opinion - No nukes, no visibly active forces of our own troops.
What limit should we have in your opinion? And why?
I'm afraid both of those options have to be on the table.
Putin needs to be told that Ukraine sits under NATO's nuclear umbrella and that if he nukes it, Russia will cease to exist.
And shipping registered to NATO countries need to be accompanied by naval vessels to and from Ukraine for their own protection, with orders to return fire if fired upon.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
We can almost certainly support them for longer than the Russians can support themselves, and so long as the Ukranians are willing to keep up the fight that’s the right thing to do.
What is the limit on supporting them?
When the Ukranians decide they’ve had enough of war, then we should stop supporting them in war and support them in peace.
It’s not in Europe’s interest to have an angry imperial bear on their doorstep, so if the Ukranians want to fight the orcs we should all help them out.
I meant how much support should we give them? Troops? Weapons? What?
Weapons, training, logistics, intelligence, surveillance, all good.
The unwritten rule for this sort of conflict, is no NATO uniforms on the ground.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
We can almost certainly support them for longer than the Russians can support themselves, and so long as the Ukranians are willing to keep up the fight that’s the right thing to do.
What is the limit on supporting them?
My opinion - No nukes, no visibly active forces of our own troops.
What limit should we have in your opinion? And why?
I'm afraid both of those options have to be on the table.
Putin needs to be told that Ukraine sits under NATO's nuclear umbrella and that if he nukes it, Russia will cease to exist.
And shipping registered to NATO countries need to be accompanied by naval vessels to and from Ukraine for their own protection, with orders to return fire if fired upon.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
You seem to spend far more time saying you're not allowed to give your view on Ukraine than giving your view on Ukraine. In fact this seems to be your main view on Ukraine - that you can't give it.
You first.
My view? Russia will take an awful lot of shifting from Ukraine. It'll be a long and bloody process and much as I want to see them defeated and driven out it probably won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon.
Your view is more 'out there', is it? Guess it must be. Therefore I'd be interested to hear it (truly) and you shouldn't be shy. No way will I get 'vituperative' about it and call you a 'Putin apologist' or anything similarly stupid.
My view is as obvious, facile, and banal as yours.
Ah ok. I thought it might be a bit spicier - what with all this 'getting shut down' business whenever you proffer it.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
You seem to spend far more time saying you're not allowed to give your view on Ukraine than giving your view on Ukraine. In fact this seems to be your main view on Ukraine - that you can't give it.
You first.
My view? Russia will take an awful lot of shifting from Ukraine. It'll be a long and bloody process and much as I want to see them defeated and driven out it probably won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon.
Your view is more 'out there', is it? Guess it must be. Therefore I'd be interested to hear it (truly) and you shouldn't be shy. No way will I get 'vituperative' about it and call you a 'Putin apologist' or anything similarly stupid.
My view is as obvious, facile, and banal as yours.
Ah ok. I thought it might be a bit spicier - what with all this 'getting shut down' business whenever you proffer it.
You say that I have previously proffered my view on Ukraine but you also said you were interested in hearing what my view was.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Preventing them from owning their own homes until they're 50 might have even more to do with it.
There will be a bit of a signal from the Spring 2021 lockdown, but yes. Making it harder for young people to settle down over a decade explains a lot more of the graph.
Build more houses. Millions more houses, support new ways to build houses, make the planning process much simpler, support more remote work and tax incentives to move businesses to areas of cheaper housing.
The cost of housing is the single biggest issue holding the UK back.
Pretty much.
And right now, the Conservatives are trapped by their electorate from doing any of that.
I've just caught up with last night's contretemps, and would like to contribute as follows:
1. I really enjoy this site much of the time; the quality of debate is often good, and I've learned some stuff (USA politics, travel, cookery etc).
2. However, there aren't enough a) dissenting voices or b) female contributors - so there is a tendency for male centrism to dominate.
3. Worst of all, though, is the repetition. For me, a small minority of posters damage the site by repeating the same point ad infinitum. This may be 'political' points (cars, housing, Brexit, cash etc.) or even 'jokes' (once you've read about 'woke trans aliens' and seen photos of a topless Putin a few times, that's enough). It makes some threads really boring.
I miss Cyclefree ...
Cyclefree essentially left because she was bullied off the site. Yes, I'm looking at you @Dura_Ace.
So rather than cheering and liking put-downs perhaps we should be a little bit nicer to each other, conscious there's a real person at the other end of the keyboard?
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Preventing them from owning their own homes until they're 50 might have even more to do with it.
There will be a bit of a signal from the Spring 2021 lockdown, but yes. Making it harder for young people to settle down over a decade explains a lot more of the graph.
Build more houses. Millions more houses, support new ways to build houses, make the planning process much simpler, support more remote work and tax incentives to move businesses to areas of cheaper housing.
The cost of housing is the single biggest issue holding the UK back.
Pretty much.
And right now, the Conservatives are trapped by their electorate from doing any of that.
I've just caught up with last night's contretemps, and would like to contribute as follows:
1. I really enjoy this site much of the time; the quality of debate is often good, and I've learned some stuff (USA politics, travel, cookery etc).
2. However, there aren't enough a) dissenting voices or b) female contributors - so there is a tendency for male centrism to dominate.
3. Worst of all, though, is the repetition. For me, a small minority of posters damage the site by repeating the same point ad infinitum. This may be 'political' points (cars, housing, Brexit, cash etc.) or even 'jokes' (once you've read about 'woke trans aliens' and seen photos of a topless Putin a few times, that's enough). It makes some threads really boring.
I miss Cyclefree ...
Cyclefree essentially left because she was bullied off the site. Yes, I'm looking at you @Dura_Ace.
So rather than cheering and liking put-downs perhaps we should be a little bit nicer to each other, conscious there's a real person at the other end of the keyboard?
I include myself in this, by the way.
I miss Ms Cyclefree too. I hope she comes back, If anyone knows her ……….
There seems to be a pretty healthy debate on Ukraine today that doesn't involve vituperative (nice word) shutting down of arguments.
Actually quite surprising we don't have at least 2 or 3 parallel debates going on. Not even on LTNs or housebuilding.
As Dura points out most of the so called popular front for the liberation of Ukraine (aka people who don't trust any assurances Russia might give in a future peace deal) are not into vituperation.
I didn't say that they were not into it, just that they are fucking crap at it.
I've just caught up with last night's contretemps, and would like to contribute as follows:
1. I really enjoy this site much of the time; the quality of debate is often good, and I've learned some stuff (USA politics, travel, cookery etc).
2. However, there aren't enough a) dissenting voices or b) female contributors - so there is a tendency for male centrism to dominate.
3. Worst of all, though, is the repetition. For me, a small minority of posters damage the site by repeating the same point ad infinitum. This may be 'political' points (cars, housing, Brexit, cash etc.) or even 'jokes' (once you've read about 'woke trans aliens' and seen photos of a topless Putin a few times, that's enough). It makes some threads really boring.
I miss Cyclefree ...
Cyclefree essentially left because she was bullied off the site. Yes, I'm looking at you @Dura_Ace.
So rather than cheering and liking put-downs perhaps we should be a little bit nicer to each other, conscious there's a real person at the other end of the keyboard?
I include myself in this, by the way.
Mammoth self-awareness success rescued from the teeth of mammoth self-awareness fail.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
You seem to spend far more time saying you're not allowed to give your view on Ukraine than giving your view on Ukraine. In fact this seems to be your main view on Ukraine - that you can't give it.
You first.
My view? Russia will take an awful lot of shifting from Ukraine. It'll be a long and bloody process and much as I want to see them defeated and driven out it probably won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon.
Your view is more 'out there', is it? Guess it must be. Therefore I'd be interested to hear it (truly) and you shouldn't be shy. No way will I get 'vituperative' about it and call you a 'Putin apologist' or anything similarly stupid.
My view is as obvious, facile, and banal as yours.
Ah ok. I thought it might be a bit spicier - what with all this 'getting shut down' business whenever you proffer it.
You say that I have previously proffered my view on Ukraine but you also said you were interested in hearing what my view was.
Yes indeed. You must have proffered it (mustn't you?) otherwise you wouldn't be saying it offends and upsets (certain) people. And I sure was interested in hearing it. Still am tbh. You might think it's not interesting but why not let me be the judge of that?
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
You seem to spend far more time saying you're not allowed to give your view on Ukraine than giving your view on Ukraine. In fact this seems to be your main view on Ukraine - that you can't give it.
You first.
My view? Russia will take an awful lot of shifting from Ukraine. It'll be a long and bloody process and much as I want to see them defeated and driven out it probably won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon.
Your view is more 'out there', is it? Guess it must be. Therefore I'd be interested to hear it (truly) and you shouldn't be shy. No way will I get 'vituperative' about it and call you a 'Putin apologist' or anything similarly stupid.
My view is as obvious, facile, and banal as yours.
Ah ok. I thought it might be a bit spicier - what with all this 'getting shut down' business whenever you proffer it.
You say that I have previously proffered my view on Ukraine but you also said you were interested in hearing what my view was.
Yes indeed. You must have proffered it (mustn't you?) otherwise you wouldn't be saying it offends and upsets (certain) people. And I sure was interested in hearing it. Still am tbh. You might think it's not interesting but why not let me be the judge of that?
I think you have exhausted what mileage you hoped to gain from this exchange.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
Well, Korea has required support for close to 70 years now as that conflict never ended. Is that what you want?
I hope we don't need to support Ukraine for 70 years, but if its what we take, I have no objection to supporting them that long.
Good of you to make commitments from beyond the grave there. Are you going to have yourself wired up Weekend at Bernie’s style to help out in 2093?
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
You seem to spend far more time saying you're not allowed to give your view on Ukraine than giving your view on Ukraine. In fact this seems to be your main view on Ukraine - that you can't give it.
You first.
My view? Russia will take an awful lot of shifting from Ukraine. It'll be a long and bloody process and much as I want to see them defeated and driven out it probably won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon.
Your view is more 'out there', is it? Guess it must be. Therefore I'd be interested to hear it (truly) and you shouldn't be shy. No way will I get 'vituperative' about it and call you a 'Putin apologist' or anything similarly stupid.
My view is as obvious, facile, and banal as yours.
Ah ok. I thought it might be a bit spicier - what with all this 'getting shut down' business whenever you proffer it.
You say that I have previously proffered my view on Ukraine but you also said you were interested in hearing what my view was.
Yes indeed. You must have proffered it (mustn't you?) otherwise you wouldn't be saying it offends and upsets (certain) people. And I sure was interested in hearing it. Still am tbh. You might think it's not interesting but why not let me be the judge of that?
I think you have exhausted what mileage you hoped to gain from this exchange.
Ok, Captain. I guess I can labour on in life without the benefit of your 'controversial' view on Ukraine. Not sure why you're self-censoring with me though? I promised I wouldn't be 'vituperative' and I totally meant that.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Other way round. Covid lockdown forced young couples to entertain themselves at home, causing an upward tick in births. Letting them out again resumed the downward trend.
Millions of people locked down at home with their spouses/partners.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
Well, Korea has required support for close to 70 years now as that conflict never ended. Is that what you want?
I hope we don't need to support Ukraine for 70 years, but if its what we take, I have no objection to supporting them that long.
Good of you to make commitments from beyond the grave there. Are you going to have yourself wired up Weekend at Bernie’s style to help out in 2093?
If life expectancy can keep going up (big if) I'm not giving up the possibility of still being alive then.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
"Dissenting views are not allowed" says one of the half a dozen plus users who routinely post dissenting views, and routinely say they are not allowed to.
Drawing a response doesn't mean your views are not allowed, I've quite often received a very vituperative response for my views on Brexit, or that (after you helped convince me) it'd be better to have had no lockdown even if it means more people would have died - but that doesn't mean such views aren't allowed, it just means others vehemently disagree.
PB Toy Soldiers vs PB Toy Kissingers
UNless the Toy Soldiers are Games Warehouse ones, in which case they form a completely different category.
Can anyone outside a US Military unlimited budget Black Program afford a set of those?
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Other way round. Covid lockdown forced young couples to entertain themselves at home, causing an upward tick in births. Letting them out again resumed the downward trend.
Millions of people locked down at home with their spouses/partners.
Ruined a lot of sex lives.
What's the first thing Johnson says to Carrie after sex?
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
"Dissenting views are not allowed" says one of the half a dozen plus users who routinely post dissenting views, and routinely say they are not allowed to.
Drawing a response doesn't mean your views are not allowed, I've quite often received a very vituperative response for my views on Brexit, or that (after you helped convince me) it'd be better to have had no lockdown even if it means more people would have died - but that doesn't mean such views aren't allowed, it just means others vehemently disagree.
PB Toy Soldiers vs PB Toy Kissingers
UNless the Toy Soldiers are Games Warehouse ones, in which case they form a completely different category.
Can anyone outside a US Military unlimited budget Black Program afford a set of those?
@TheScreamingEagles might be able to afford afford a modest set if he gave up getting any new shoes and clothes for a year.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, it will takes nuking ourselves.
If madly waving nuclear weapons around wins all conflicts, then the maddest wins. Right?
So my plan to detonate nuclear weapons at regular intervals to keep a cavern full of molten salt liquid, which is then used to drive steam turbines*, is the way to go?
"You want to nuke us? We nuke ourselves, once every five minutes, just to keeps the lights on and post on PB!"
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Other way round. Covid lockdown forced young couples to entertain themselves at home, causing an upward tick in births. Letting them out again resumed the downward trend.
Millions of people locked down at home with their spouses/partners.
Ruined a lot of sex lives.
What's the first thing Johnson says to Carrie after sex?
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Preventing them from owning their own homes until they're 50 might have even more to do with it.
There will be a bit of a signal from the Spring 2021 lockdown, but yes. Making it harder for young people to settle down over a decade explains a lot more of the graph.
Build more houses. Millions more houses, support new ways to build houses, make the planning process much simpler, support more remote work and tax incentives to move businesses to areas of cheaper housing.
The cost of housing is the single biggest issue holding the UK back.
Pretty much.
And right now, the Conservatives are trapped by their electorate from doing any of that.
As we saw the other day, the "Save the countryside/Green" contingent on the left will howl down any attempt to increase house building.
The problem is that a large confluence of interests are against increased house building. Not a majority, but enough it make it a political killer at local level.
So I expect no change with another government.
It somewhat reminds me, somewhat, of the tests of supersonic aircraft over land in the 1960s in the US. The result of the tests was that a substantial minority (30% IIRC) would never adapt to the sound and would vote for whoever would stop it. Which killed supersonic overflight in the US stone dead.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
Well, Korea has required support for close to 70 years now as that conflict never ended. Is that what you want?
I hope we don't need to support Ukraine for 70 years, but if its what we take, I have no objection to supporting them that long.
Good of you to make commitments from beyond the grave there. Are you going to have yourself wired up Weekend at Bernie’s style to help out in 2093?
If life expectancy can keep going up (big if) I'm not giving up the possibility of still being alive then.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
The current cost of support is a small portion of Western defence budgets. Over time we are seeing the cost of gas and oil fall back. It's worth remembering that some Western nations are on (or approaching) the downslope of oil and gas usage - as the economies go green, usage will fall, despite economic growth continuing.
At the current monetary cost, we could continue forever.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Other way round. Covid lockdown forced young couples to entertain themselves at home, causing an upward tick in births. Letting them out again resumed the downward trend.
Millions of people locked down at home with their spouses/partners.
Ruined a lot of sex lives.
What's the first thing Johnson says to Carrie after sex?
'Darling, I'll be home in 20 minutes.'
Johnson, you say?
Wasn't he important once?
It is fascinating how rapidly he's dropped out of politics.
Writing anodyne, no-one-can-hate columns for the papers about saving the newts, no less.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
"Dissenting views are not allowed" says one of the half a dozen plus users who routinely post dissenting views, and routinely say they are not allowed to.
Drawing a response doesn't mean your views are not allowed, I've quite often received a very vituperative response for my views on Brexit, or that (after you helped convince me) it'd be better to have had no lockdown even if it means more people would have died - but that doesn't mean such views aren't allowed, it just means others vehemently disagree.
PB Toy Soldiers vs PB Toy Kissingers
UNless the Toy Soldiers are Games Warehouse ones, in which case they form a completely different category.
Can anyone outside a US Military unlimited budget Black Program afford a set of those?
@TheScreamingEagles might be able to afford afford a modest set if he gave up getting any new shoes and clothes for a year.
He might have to move from a decent banker to Coutts, even so.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Other way round. Covid lockdown forced young couples to entertain themselves at home, causing an upward tick in births. Letting them out again resumed the downward trend.
Millions of people locked down at home with their spouses/partners.
Ruined a lot of sex lives.
What's the first thing Johnson says to Carrie after sex?
'Darling, I'll be home in 20 minutes.'
Johnson, you say?
Wasn't he important once?
It is fascinating how rapidly he's dropped out of politics.
Writing anodyne, no-one-can-hate columns for the papers about saving the newts, no less.
I wonder how long the Daily Mail will keep him on. Surely the idea was that he totally sticks it to Rishi on a weekly basis. Newts must be a terrible let-down.
Russia will be hard to shift from Ukraine. But Ukraine doesn't need to shift them from all of Ukraine. They need to get a breakthrough somewhere on the defensive line and then exploit it. If they can then make the dash to the Sea of Azov (80km) then Crimea will be cut off from Russia except potentially via the Kerch Bridge (hence the relentless targeting of it). The Russian position will then be untenable.
The progress Ukraine has made with no air superiority is frankly remarkable. If the West/NATO had committed to providing F-16s and other weapon systems earlier then they would likely be in a better position. We should be giving everything we can possibly spare.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Other way round. Covid lockdown forced young couples to entertain themselves at home, causing an upward tick in births. Letting them out again resumed the downward trend.
Millions of people locked down at home with their spouses/partners.
Ruined a lot of sex lives.
What's the first thing Johnson says to Carrie after sex?
'Darling, I'll be home in 20 minutes.'
Johnson, you say?
Wasn't he important once?
It is fascinating how rapidly he's dropped out of politics.
Writing anodyne, no-one-can-hate columns for the papers about saving the newts, no less.
I wonder how long the Daily Mail will keep him on. Surely the idea was that he totally sticks it to Rishi on a weekly basis. Newts must be a terrible let-down.
Comes with the Mayor of London territory, of course.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
The current cost of support is a small portion of Western defence budgets. Over time we are seeing the cost of gas and oil fall back. It's worth remembering that some Western nations are on (or approaching) the downslope of oil and gas usage - as the economies go green, usage will fall, despite economic growth continuing.
At the current monetary cost, we could continue forever.
Indeed from the value for money perspective, getting the Ukranians to destroy the Russian military is great value. They are defanging the bear, the only real military threat to the continent.
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Other way round. Covid lockdown forced young couples to entertain themselves at home, causing an upward tick in births. Letting them out again resumed the downward trend.
Millions of people locked down at home with their spouses/partners.
Ruined a lot of sex lives.
What's the first thing Johnson says to Carrie after sex?
'Darling, I'll be home in 20 minutes.'
Johnson, you say?
Wasn't he important once?
It is fascinating how rapidly he's dropped out of politics.
Writing anodyne, no-one-can-hate columns for the papers about saving the newts, no less.
I wonder how long the Daily Mail will keep him on. Surely the idea was that he totally sticks it to Rishi on a weekly basis. Newts must be a terrible let-down.
What did he write about at the Daily Telegraph? It wasn't much political vituperation, was it?
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
The German invasions of France in 1914 and 1940 both ended with negotiated settlements, so that covers a vast range of possibilities.
Neither of those points is right, really. The 'settlements' were imposed in 1919 and 1940, with the defeated party unable to resist terms and no negotiations meaningful of the name took place. Obviously, if you extend the 1940 invasion through to 1945, there was explicitly no deal done: 'unconditional surrender' was demanded, and given.
The German observer Brockdorff-Rantzau at the Versailles conference was so furious at the terms he refused to sign them. He left the room, and the German government collapsed. The new government under Bauer had to order him back into the room under instructions from Ebert who pointed out 'we've got no choice.'
Which has always struck me as ironic because twelve months earlier Trotsky and Lenin had played out an almost identical drama over Brest-Litovsk...which was imposed by the Germans.
Quite.
This mantra that 'all wars end in negotiations' is a lot more complex than it sounds (unsurprisingly). In fact, the number of wars that end with meaningful negotiations, where the two (or more) sides are able to genuinely bargain over substantive issues isn't all that high. More often, particularly in the 20th century, we see one side imposing terms, or a frozen stalemate, or some combination of the two where one side 'wins' but there's no formal agreement to end the conflict, it just winds down de facto because one side has achieved its objectives and the other can't resist, or feels it's not worth the effort.
Conflicts usually have outcomes, rather than solutions.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
The current cost of support is a small portion of Western defence budgets. Over time we are seeing the cost of gas and oil fall back. It's worth remembering that some Western nations are on (or approaching) the downslope of oil and gas usage - as the economies go green, usage will fall, despite economic growth continuing.
At the current monetary cost, we could continue forever.
Indeed from the value for money perspective, getting the Ukranians to destroy the Russian military is great value. They are defanging the bear, the only real military threat to the continental.
In terms of Western military spending, it's an incredibly good deal.
There seems to be a pretty healthy debate on Ukraine today that doesn't involve vituperative (nice word) shutting down of arguments.
Actually quite surprising we don't have at least 2 or 3 parallel debates going on. Not even on LTNs or housebuilding.
As Dura points out most of the so called popular front for the liberation of Ukraine (aka people who don't trust any assurances Russia might give in a future peace deal) are not into vituperation. I assume I'm considered part of that camp, and I don't come on here with the purpose of insulting or having enjoyable snarky banter. It's a matter of taste - some people enjoy it, some don't. I come here because there's an interesting range of opinions and experience.
I think that some here do respond to any non-hawkish comment on Ukraine by speculating on the motives of the writer, which does have a chilling effect, especially for those of us who choose to be identifiable. So I don't comment very often. But I'll take your invitation as encouragement, and FWIW my view is:
(1) Russia's invasion is mostly pretty straightforward imperialism - "we want your territory and we'll take it by force of arms". As such, it's appalling. (2) Russia did have reason to complain about the way NATO was expanding up to its border (in much the same way as the US got worried about Cuba), and could reasonably have objected vehemently but peacefully to Ukraine joining in. That option was closed off by the invasion (which is why the invasion was stupid as well as appalling), and Ukraine should be welcomed into NATO once the war is either over or frozen, so that any future Russian attacks become an attack on the whole alliance and the invasion is seen to have failed in its primary aim. (3) Our dislike of the invasion shouldn't lead us to think that Ukrainian nationalism is wonderful and needs to be embraced in toto. The willingness of nationalists to continue to celebrate Hitler collaborators like Bandera is repulsive, the prewar treatment of the Russophile minority was dubious and the insistence on regaining every inch of disputed territory regardless of the views of current residents* is not a war aim we should prioritise. (4) Some Ukrainian sources admit that much of the area that is not yet recaptured has significant pro-Russian sympathies, and we could do with some more non-aligned media reporting from the east as we're getting an unremitting stream of one-sided coverage. There was one al-Jazeera piece some months back, which IIRC basically said that the Russians had some active support but the majority simply wanted the war to stop without being counter-liberated - which seems plausible, even given the constraints on people speaking their minds. (5) We should therefore aim to encourage a cease-fire ultimately followed by referendums in each region on where they want to belong - the Slesvig-Holstein solution. We should continue to give Ukraine support to make further Russian advances impossible, but shouldn't escalate with new weapon systems or seek to encourage the maximal war aim in (3) by suggesting we'll give more and more until total victory (since that would boost the "no compromise" approach),
It's a minority view, and I have zero influence on the issue, so it doesn't actually matter what I think, but maybe it helps in the interest of a full-spectrum debate.
* As in all referendums, the issue of "what is a current resident" will be a problem if we ever get that far - if pro-Ukraine residents have fled to the west of the country, do they get a vote in what happens in the east? But we're a very long way from even discussing that.
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Whatever it takes, does that include nuking Russia then?
No, whatever it takes conventionally. This is a conventional war.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
We cannot support them forever, surely.
The current cost of support is a small portion of Western defence budgets. Over time we are seeing the cost of gas and oil fall back. It's worth remembering that some Western nations are on (or approaching) the downslope of oil and gas usage - as the economies go green, usage will fall, despite economic growth continuing.
At the current monetary cost, we could continue forever.
Indeed from the value for money perspective, getting the Ukranians to destroy the Russian military is great value. They are defanging the bear, the only real military threat to the continent.
That's been noted by a few - we are sending 1980s military equipment to destroy the 1960s, 70s and 80s Soviet equipment they were designed to destroy.
There's another rumour about the Jordanian Challengers again...
Personally I feel that Ukraine-Russia will end with some kind of negotiated settlement.
The German invasions of France in 1914 and 1940 both ended with negotiated settlements, so that covers a vast range of possibilities.
Neither of those points is right, really. The 'settlements' were imposed in 1919 and 1940, with the defeated party unable to resist terms and no negotiations meaningful of the name took place. Obviously, if you extend the 1940 invasion through to 1945, there was explicitly no deal done: 'unconditional surrender' was demanded, and given.
The German observer Brockdorff-Rantzau at the Versailles conference was so furious at the terms he refused to sign them. He left the room, and the German government collapsed. The new government under Bauer had to order him back into the room under instructions from Ebert who pointed out 'we've got no choice.'
Which has always struck me as ironic because twelve months earlier Trotsky and Lenin had played out an almost identical drama over Brest-Litovsk...which was imposed by the Germans.
Quite.
This mantra that 'all wars end in negotiations' is a lot more complex than it sounds (unsurprisingly). In fact, the number of wars that end with meaningful negotiations, where the two (or more) sides are able to genuinely bargain over substantive issues isn't all that high. More often, particularly in the 20th century, we see one side imposing terms, or a frozen stalemate, or some combination of the two where one side 'wins' but there's no formal agreement to end the conflict, it just winds down de facto because one side has achieved its objectives and the other can't resist, or feels it's not worth the effort.
Yes.
I mean, it depends what you mean by negotiations. These frozen conflicts usually entail some degree of negotiation, even if it's just at the level of agreeing a ceasefire that then goes on and on.
But even when there are more meaningful negotiations, it is said that more than 50% of peace agreements fail within 5 years. It is difficult to produce meaningful long-term peace. We only need to look at Ireland/Northern Ireland (1848-1998) to see how protracted conflicts can be.
I've just caught up with last night's contretemps, and would like to contribute as follows:
1. I really enjoy this site much of the time; the quality of debate is often good, and I've learned some stuff (USA politics, travel, cookery etc).
2. However, there aren't enough a) dissenting voices or b) female contributors - so there is a tendency for male centrism to dominate.
3. Worst of all, though, is the repetition. For me, a small minority of posters damage the site by repeating the same point ad infinitum. This may be 'political' points (cars, housing, Brexit, cash etc.) or even 'jokes' (once you've read about 'woke trans aliens' and seen photos of a topless Putin a few times, that's enough). It makes some threads really boring.
I miss Cyclefree ...
Cyclefree essentially left because she was bullied off the site. Yes, I'm looking at you @Dura_Ace.
So rather than cheering and liking put-downs perhaps we should be a little bit nicer to each other, conscious there's a real person at the other end of the keyboard?
Who could have thought that telling young, fertile people not to go out where they could hook up with other young, fertile people would reduce birth rates?
Preventing them from owning their own homes until they're 50 might have even more to do with it.
There will be a bit of a signal from the Spring 2021 lockdown, but yes. Making it harder for young people to settle down over a decade explains a lot more of the graph.
Build more houses. Millions more houses, support new ways to build houses, make the planning process much simpler, support more remote work and tax incentives to move businesses to areas of cheaper housing.
The cost of housing is the single biggest issue holding the UK back.
Pretty much.
And right now, the Conservatives are trapped by their electorate from doing any of that.
As we saw the other day, the "Save the countryside/Green" contingent on the left will howl down any attempt to increase house building.
The problem is that a large confluence of interests are against increased house building. Not a majority, but enough it make it a political killer at local level.
So I expect no change with another government.
It somewhat reminds me, somewhat, of the tests of supersonic aircraft over land in the 1960s in the US. The result of the tests was that a substantial minority (30% IIRC) would never adapt to the sound and would vote for whoever would stop it. Which killed supersonic overflight in the US stone dead.
Exactly, LD, Green and Residents Association and Independent councils are much more NIMBY than Tory councils
There seems to be a pretty healthy debate on Ukraine today that doesn't involve vituperative (nice word) shutting down of arguments.
Actually quite surprising we don't have at least 2 or 3 parallel debates going on. Not even on LTNs or housebuilding.
As Dura points out most of the so called popular front for the liberation of Ukraine (aka people who don't trust any assurances Russia might give in a future peace deal) are not into vituperation. I assume I'm considered part of that camp, and I don't come on here with the purpose of insulting or having enjoyable snarky banter. It's a matter of taste - some people enjoy it, some don't. I come here because there's an interesting range of opinions and experience.
I think that some here do respond to any non-hawkish comment on Ukraine by speculating on the motives of the writer, which does have a chilling effect, especially for those of us who choose to be identifiable. So I don't comment very often. But I'll take your invitation as encouragement, and FWIW my view is:
(1) Russia's invasion is mostly pretty straightforward imperialism - "we want your territory and we'll take it by force of arms". As such, it's appalling. (2) Russia did have reason to complain about the way NATO was expanding up to its border (in much the same way as the US got worried about Cuba), and could reasonably have objected vehemently but peacefully to Ukraine joining in. That option was closed off by the invasion (which is why the invasion was stupid as well as appalling), and Ukraine should be welcomed into NATO once the war is either over or frozen, so that any future Russian attacks become an attack on the whole alliance and the invasion is seen to have failed in its primary aim. (3) Our dislike of the invasion shouldn't lead us to think that Ukrainian nationalism is wonderful and needs to be embraced in toto. The willingness of nationalists to continue to celebrate Hitler collaborators like Bandera is repulsive, the prewar treatment of the Russophile minority was dubious and the insistence on regaining every inch of disputed territory regardless of the views of current residents* is not a war aim we should prioritise. (4) Some Ukrainian sources admit that much of the area that is not yet recaptured has significant pro-Russian sympathies, and we could do with some more non-aligned media reporting from the east as we're getting an unremitting stream of one-sided coverage. There was one al-Jazeera piece some months back, which IIRC basically said that the Russians had some active support but the majority simply wanted the war to stop without being counter-liberated - which seems plausible, even given the constraints on people speaking their minds. (5) We should therefore aim to encourage a cease-fire ultimately followed by referendums in each region on where they want to belong - the Slesvig-Holstein solution. We should continue to give Ukraine support to make further Russian advances impossible, but shouldn't escalate with new weapon systems or seek to encourage the maximal war aim in (3) by suggesting we'll give more and more until total victory (since that would boost the "no compromise" approach),
It's a minority view, and I have zero influence on the issue, so it doesn't actually matter what I think, but maybe it helps in the interest of a full-spectrum debate.
* As in all referendums, the issue of "what is a current resident" will be a problem if we ever get that far - if pro-Ukraine residents have fled to the west of the country, do they get a vote in what happens in the east? But we're a very long way from even discussing that.
This map was the referendum on independence. Ever oblast voted for Ukranian independence, and only in Crimea was it even close. The rest were overwhelming.
I've just caught up with last night's contretemps, and would like to contribute as follows:
1. I really enjoy this site much of the time; the quality of debate is often good, and I've learned some stuff (USA politics, travel, cookery etc).
2. However, there aren't enough a) dissenting voices or b) female contributors - so there is a tendency for male centrism to dominate.
3. Worst of all, though, is the repetition. For me, a small minority of posters damage the site by repeating the same point ad infinitum. This may be 'political' points (cars, housing, Brexit, cash etc.) or even 'jokes' (once you've read about 'woke trans aliens' and seen photos of a topless Putin a few times, that's enough). It makes some threads really boring.
I miss Cyclefree ...
Cyclefree essentially left because she was bullied off the site. Yes, I'm looking at you @Dura_Ace.
So rather than cheering and liking put-downs perhaps we should be a little bit nicer to each other, conscious there's a real person at the other end of the keyboard?
There seems to be a pretty healthy debate on Ukraine today that doesn't involve vituperative (nice word) shutting down of arguments.
Actually quite surprising we don't have at least 2 or 3 parallel debates going on. Not even on LTNs or housebuilding.
As Dura points out most of the so called popular front for the liberation of Ukraine (aka people who don't trust any assurances Russia might give in a future peace deal) are not into vituperation. I assume I'm considered part of that camp, and I don't come on here with the purpose of insulting or having enjoyable snarky banter. It's a matter of taste - some people enjoy it, some don't. I come here because there's an interesting range of opinions and experience.
I think that some here do respond to any non-hawkish comment on Ukraine by speculating on the motives of the writer, which does have a chilling effect, especially for those of us who choose to be identifiable. So I don't comment very often. But I'll take your invitation as encouragement, and FWIW my view is:
(1) Russia's invasion is mostly pretty straightforward imperialism - "we want your territory and we'll take it by force of arms". As such, it's appalling. (2) Russia did have reason to complain about the way NATO was expanding up to its border (in much the same way as the US got worried about Cuba), and could reasonably have objected vehemently but peacefully to Ukraine joining in. That option was closed off by the invasion (which is why the invasion was stupid as well as appalling), and Ukraine should be welcomed into NATO once the war is either over or frozen, so that any future Russian attacks become an attack on the whole alliance and the invasion is seen to have failed in its primary aim. (3) Our dislike of the invasion shouldn't lead us to think that Ukrainian nationalism is wonderful and needs to be embraced in toto. The willingness of nationalists to continue to celebrate Hitler collaborators like Bandera is repulsive, the prewar treatment of the Russophile minority was dubious and the insistence on regaining every inch of disputed territory regardless of the views of current residents* is not a war aim we should prioritise. (4) Some Ukrainian sources admit that much of the area that is not yet recaptured has significant pro-Russian sympathies, and we could do with some more non-aligned media reporting from the east as we're getting an unremitting stream of one-sided coverage. There was one al-Jazeera piece some months back, which IIRC basically said that the Russians had some active support but the majority simply wanted the war to stop without being counter-liberated - which seems plausible, even given the constraints on people speaking their minds. (5) We should therefore aim to encourage a cease-fire ultimately followed by referendums in each region on where they want to belong - the Slesvig-Holstein solution. We should continue to give Ukraine support to make further Russian advances impossible, but shouldn't escalate with new weapon systems or seek to encourage the maximal war aim in (3) by suggesting we'll give more and more until total victory (since that would boost the "no compromise" approach),
It's a minority view, and I have zero influence on the issue, so it doesn't actually matter what I think, but maybe it helps in the interest of a full-spectrum debate.
* As in all referendums, the issue of "what is a current resident" will be a problem if we ever get that far - if pro-Ukraine residents have fled to the west of the country, do they get a vote in what happens in the east? But we're a very long way from even discussing that.
The problem with recognisng referendums after an invasion by another power is that it just encourages ethnic cleansing and settlement. Invade, chuck out lots of the old residents and give their property to 'your people. As Russia has done in Crimea Post 2014. Recognising referendums in such a situation condones ethnic cleansing.
Comments
Latest stats out...
There were 605,479 live births in England and Wales in 2022, down 3.1% from 624,828 in 2021 and the lowest number since 2002.
The number remains in line with the recent trend of decreasing live births seen before the #COVID19 pandemic.
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1692091687667896482
Actually quite surprising we don't have at least 2 or 3 parallel debates going on. Not even on LTNs or housebuilding.
As Dura points out most of the so called popular front for the liberation of Ukraine (aka people who don't trust any assurances Russia might give in a future peace deal) are not into vituperation. I assume I'm considered part of that camp, and I don't come on here with the purpose of insulting or having enjoyable snarky banter. It's a matter of taste - some people enjoy it, some don't. I come here because there's an interesting range of opinions and experience.
Your view is more 'out there', is it? Guess it must be. Therefore I'd be interested to hear it (truly) and you shouldn't be shy. No way will I get 'vituperative' about it and call you a 'Putin apologist' or anything similarly stupid.
The rules of engagement in these conflicts since WWII have been very clear. No troops, no direct engagement, no nukes - but ammunition, weapons, support, training, logistics are OK.
That is what we are doing. Its what the USSR did when the west was fighting in Korea and Vietnam, its what the West did when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan etc
I think if they're not, then a negotiated settlement is much less likely and we might end up with what is far worse, a frozen conflict like Korea.
So doing whatever it takes to support Ukraine makes an acceptable negotiated settlement more likely, not less likely.
I hope we don't need to support Ukraine for 70 years, but if its what we take, I have no objection to supporting them that long.
The dice will be rolled whenever Putin leaves, its what happens whenever a dictator falls. Not a reason not to do the right thing.
Do you accept that Ukraine has been able to liberate some of its territory already?
If so, do you accept that Ukraine has the potential to liberate more, or all, of its occupied territory? Just as its already liberated some?
The cost of housing is the single biggest issue holding the UK back.
Which has always struck me as ironic because twelve months earlier Trotsky and Lenin had played out an almost identical drama over Brest-Litovsk...which was imposed by the Germans.
What limit should we have in your opinion? And why?
It’s not in Europe’s interest to have an angry imperial bear on their doorstep, so if the Ukranians want to fight the orcs we should all help them out.
This mantra that 'all wars end in negotiations' is a lot more complex than it sounds (unsurprisingly). In fact, the number of wars that end with meaningful negotiations, where the two (or more) sides are able to genuinely bargain over substantive issues isn't all that high. More often, particularly in the 20th century, we see one side imposing terms, or a frozen stalemate, or some combination of the two where one side 'wins' but there's no formal agreement to end the conflict, it just winds down de facto because one side has achieved its objectives and the other can't resist, or feels it's not worth the effort.
Putin needs to be told that Ukraine sits under NATO's nuclear umbrella and that if he nukes it, Russia will cease to exist.
And shipping registered to NATO countries need to be accompanied by naval vessels to and from Ukraine for their own protection, with orders to return fire if fired upon.
The unwritten rule for this sort of conflict, is no NATO uniforms on the ground.
Where would you draw the line?
*curses lack of emoji for blowing my own trumpet*
And right now, the Conservatives are trapped by their electorate from doing any of that.
So rather than cheering and liking put-downs perhaps we should be a little bit nicer to each other, conscious there's a real person at the other end of the keyboard?
I include myself in this, by the way.
And she's a bitch
If anyone knows her ……….
https://youtu.be/ETlLWPzIH84
Ruined a lot of sex lives.
'Darling, I'll be home in 20 minutes.'
If madly waving nuclear weapons around wins all conflicts, then the maddest wins. Right?
So my plan to detonate nuclear weapons at regular intervals to keep a cavern full of molten salt liquid, which is then used to drive steam turbines*, is the way to go?
"You want to nuke us? We nuke ourselves, once every five minutes, just to keeps the lights on and post on PB!"
*Actually looked at back in the 1950s
Wasn't he important once?
The problem is that a large confluence of interests are against increased house building. Not a majority, but enough it make it a political killer at local level.
So I expect no change with another government.
It somewhat reminds me, somewhat, of the tests of supersonic aircraft over land in the 1960s in the US. The result of the tests was that a substantial minority (30% IIRC) would never adapt to the sound and would vote for whoever would stop it. Which killed supersonic overflight in the US stone dead.
(Or is it balanced on your nose?)
At the current monetary cost, we could continue forever.
Writing anodyne, no-one-can-hate columns for the papers about saving the newts, no less.
The progress Ukraine has made with no air superiority is frankly remarkable. If the West/NATO had committed to providing F-16s and other weapon systems earlier then they would likely be in a better position. We should be giving everything we can possibly spare.
[Edit: is that too dated/recherche, I wonder?]
(1) Russia's invasion is mostly pretty straightforward imperialism - "we want your territory and we'll take it by force of arms". As such, it's appalling.
(2) Russia did have reason to complain about the way NATO was expanding up to its border (in much the same way as the US got worried about Cuba), and could reasonably have objected vehemently but peacefully to Ukraine joining in. That option was closed off by the invasion (which is why the invasion was stupid as well as appalling), and Ukraine should be welcomed into NATO once the war is either over or frozen, so that any future Russian attacks become an attack on the whole alliance and the invasion is seen to have failed in its primary aim.
(3) Our dislike of the invasion shouldn't lead us to think that Ukrainian nationalism is wonderful and needs to be embraced in toto. The willingness of nationalists to continue to celebrate Hitler collaborators like Bandera is repulsive, the prewar treatment of the Russophile minority was dubious and the insistence on regaining every inch of disputed territory regardless of the views of current residents* is not a war aim we should prioritise.
(4) Some Ukrainian sources admit that much of the area that is not yet recaptured has significant pro-Russian sympathies, and we could do with some more non-aligned media reporting from the east as we're getting an unremitting stream of one-sided coverage. There was one al-Jazeera piece some months back, which IIRC basically said that the Russians had some active support but the majority simply wanted the war to stop without being counter-liberated - which seems plausible, even given the constraints on people speaking their minds.
(5) We should therefore aim to encourage a cease-fire ultimately followed by referendums in each region on where they want to belong - the Slesvig-Holstein solution. We should continue to give Ukraine support to make further Russian advances impossible, but shouldn't escalate with new weapon systems or seek to encourage the maximal war aim in (3) by suggesting we'll give more and more until total victory (since that would boost the "no compromise" approach),
It's a minority view, and I have zero influence on the issue, so it doesn't actually matter what I think, but maybe it helps in the interest of a full-spectrum debate.
* As in all referendums, the issue of "what is a current resident" will be a problem if we ever get that far - if pro-Ukraine residents have fled to the west of the country, do they get a vote in what happens in the east? But we're a very long way from even discussing that.
There's another rumour about the Jordanian Challengers again...
I mean, it depends what you mean by negotiations. These frozen conflicts usually entail some degree of negotiation, even if it's just at the level of agreeing a ceasefire that then goes on and on.
But even when there are more meaningful negotiations, it is said that more than 50% of peace agreements fail within 5 years. It is difficult to produce meaningful long-term peace. We only need to look at Ireland/Northern Ireland (1848-1998) to see how protracted conflicts can be.
But obviously that's not a reason not to try!
So this is not welcome. Please never mention it again.
"Falklands: Milei favors diplomacy and the Hong Kong model, respecting people's wishes — MercoPress" https://en.mercopress.com/2023/08/14/falklands-milei-favors-diplomacy-and-the-hong-kong-model-respecting-people-s-wishes