The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
I imagine the last thing the Post Office would want is an ethical person who complies with the law.
That might get all their senior management prison sentences.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
The piece you linked to earlier was highlighting issues for the Ukrainians away from where their counter-assault is concentrated - where all the best men and kit currently are
You made it sound like that’s the situation everywhere; I hope you did that ignorantly
You’re also caught up in a weird sensationalism of twitX views of a video of an interview that is offensively wrong from its first sentence
OK try this then. This is also from the Kyiv Independent. A pro-Ukraine source in Ukraine. Funded by Canada, praised by the UK and EU, and so on
It's a report from the southern front. And it is way more negative than anything we generally read in the West
Sample paragraphs:
"Eighteen months into the full-scale war however, the formation, with units fighting on all three axes of the counteroffensive, is now beginning to pay a high price for its makeup of volunteers, rather than mobilized soldiers.
“It's hard to go forward, we don't have new weapons and equipment, and these days our personnel aren't being replaced,” said Ilnytskyi."
"Since Ukrainian forces first regained the initiative around Bakhmut in May, Ground Forces Commander Oleksandr Syrskyi has repeatedly claimed that the occupied city was in the process of being “encircled.” On the ground, that still looks like a distant dream.
“Everyone has their own job, their own mission,” said Lavryniuk dryly. “If they (Syrskyi) say things like that then maybe they know something we don't"
"Whatever gains the southern counteroffensive makes before culmination, both sides look set for a gruelling struggle that could last for years more.
Eighteen months in, concern is mounting among soldiers, from commanders to the rank and file, that for much of the country’s civilian population, the war is increasingly fading into the distance, even as the fighting shows no signs of dying down."
Tell me, why are the UKRAINIANS being so negative? Perhaps they, like me, have "veered to the dark side"
Man, if you think that's negative, you should try reading some Russian Telegraph channels.
The journalist himself says this:
"Hi, this is Francis Farrell, cheers for reading this article. It's been a while since I've done a field report from around Bakhmut, but this time was definitely different. For those of us who are dedicated to the victory of Ukraine, there is no point living with rose-tinted goggles on, this is what it will look like for a long time. As long as it goes on, we will be here, reporting on it as it is"
I'm hazarding a guess he knows more than you, even though he has more motivation to be positive than you
Yes, what he's saying is honest reporting.
It is not what you're saying.
He's not saying that Ukraine are "running out of men" or that the "Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated" or that Ukraine is "slowly losing this war" that is your supposition and was not his conclusion.
What he's saying is that fighting could last a long time, yes that can be what happens in warfare. Its brutal, and bloody, and its not a Hollywood action movie where some conquering hero comes in and clears all the enemy singlehandedly and rapidly.
All the more reason for us to support Ukraine for the long term. The opposite of the conclusion you seem to be drawing.
You are, as ever, confused
The article (from the Kyiv Independent) which refers to the Russians being "better trained", etc, was from the Kharkiv front. Go look down the thread. It was published Sept 1
This even more pessimistic article from the southern from - same media source - dates from August 27
The article does not say that the Russians are better trained overall.
It says that in one front, where the Ukrainians are defending and not on the offensive so haven't put their best units, that the Ukrainian forces aren't very trained. That's true. Its not news to anyone, Ukraine has many recruits, they conscripted the entire nation pretty much.
Of course the longer the war goes on, the better trained those troops will be, from experience and not just weeks of NATO training. Since Ukraine isn't looking to end this war in a matter of days or weeks, supporting them as best as we can is our responsibility, but you are drawing an opposite conclusion because you have this ridiculous notion of a "quick" end to the war as being desirable.
Why is it?
A quick victory for Ukraine, if it were possible, would of course be preferable. But nobody has suggested that, so you're tilting at windmills.
A quick surrender by Ukraine, or its western allies, is worse than a long and drawn out war that brutally and bloodily enables Ukraine to achieve a lasting victory.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
Ukraine does have problems, but it is also making solid progress in the South. And, if the Crimean land bridge is severed, then Russia is in real trouble. How does it supply the troops in Crimea or the West of the country?
Personally, I think this is very simple:
It's not our job to tell Ukraine not to fight the aggressor. If the Ukrainian people want to keep standing up to Putin, then it is moral duty to give them as much help as we can. And if they wish to make peace, then we must support them in that too.
Too many people think that our support is somehow unethical because it might prolong the war. That is a morally repugnant view.
Given that none of us (that I can work out) have a particular background in matters ethical, I think we should probably try to avoid confident declarations of moral repugnance in the views of others.
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Here is the comment from the journalist himself, at the end
"Hi, this is Francis Farrell, cheers for reading this article. It's been a while since I've done a field report from around Bakhmut, but this time was definitely different. For those of us who are dedicated to the victory of Ukraine, there is no point living with rose-tinted goggles on, this is what it will look like for a long time. As long as it goes on, we will be here, reporting on it as it is"
I've been making similar comments for quite some time now. The truth is that the Russians have proven much, much harder to beat than looked to be the case last Autumn. At a time when we expected them to be suffering ever more severe logistical challenges and perhaps even a collapse of morale they have been more organised, better led and more effective than they had been up to now. Someone in the Russian army is actually getting a grip. We can only hope that he falls out of favour soon.
Defending is easier than attacking. Much more so. Last year Ukraine was mostly defending and inflicted horrendous casualties on the Russians. Now it is their turn. Moving about on a modern battlefield is seriously dangerous. Drones, artillery, minefields, booby traps, it is getting almost too dangerous for humans not in armour to survive.
It remains entirely possible that Russia will have a breaking point and collapse. I really hope so. I desperately want Ukraine to win this war. It just doesn't look imminent.
Interestingly Susan Hall has a positive net favourable rating in London unlike either Corbyn or Khan
Yes, by one point and 57% Don't Know. The 22% are presumably the loyal Conservative base - as for the 57% we'll see what they think after they get to hear and see her.
Leon isn't a Putin apologist, fash sympathiser or anything else.
He's just a luvvie and a professional bedwetter.
He'd have been taken to the rear in a strait jacket, had he been in the trenches during WW1. And during WW2 he'd have no doubt been hanging onto the coattails of Halifax urging us to make peace in June 1940.
Why are you all obsessed with discussing Leon? I struggle to think of a duller subject (the words about him rather than he himself)
I entirely agree, I don't want this to be "about me". It's fucking ludicrous
I am simply offering a different, less hopeful perspective on the war (than some). and I am carefully backing up my claims with actual evidence (either from Ukrainian sources, or the BBC)
On the other side there are people just hurling juvenile abuse - "collaborator", "blackshirt", "Putinist", "bedwetter", "fucking appeaser" - and offering no evidence at all
Leon isn't a Putin apologist, fash sympathiser or anything else.
He's just a luvvie and a professional bedwetter.
He'd have been taken to the rear in a strait jacket, had he been in the trenches during WW1. And during WW2 he'd have no doubt been hanging onto the coattails of Halifax urging us to make peace in June 1940.
Why are you all obsessed with discussing Leon? I struggle to think of a duller subject (the words about him rather than he himself)
I entirely agree, I don't want this to be "about me". It's fucking ludicrous
I am simply offering a different, less hopeful perspective on the war (than some). and I am carefully backing up my claims with actual evidence (either from Ukrainian sources, or the BBC)
On the other side there are people just hurling juvenile abuse - "collaborator", "blackshirt", "Putinist", "bedwetter", "fucking appeaser" - and offering no evidence at all
It's truly boring, and also childish
You like the attention, and perhaps seek it, or at least have sought it. The great plus in your favour is that you have something coherent to say - even if it's about aliens.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
Ukraine does have problems, but it is also making solid progress in the South. And, if the Crimean land bridge is severed, then Russia is in real trouble. How does it supply the troops in Crimea or the West of the country?
Personally, I think this is very simple:
It's not our job to tell Ukraine not to fight the aggressor. If the Ukrainian people want to keep standing up to Putin, then it is moral duty to give them as much help as we can. And if they wish to make peace, then we must support them in that too.
Too many people think that our support is somehow unethical because it might prolong the war. That is a morally repugnant view.
Given that none of us (that I can work out) have a particular background in matters ethical, I think we should probably try to avoid confident declarations of moral repugnance in the views of others.
No.
We all have a particular background in matters ethical. We all have principles and morals. Morals are not a preserve of a minority, it is something every human has.
My principles include that totalitarian dictatorships invading and conquering other people is repugnant.
Unless Ukraine is defeated and wanting to surrender, which it is not, then us supporting Ukraine is absolutely morally and unambiguously the right thing to do.
Appeasing monsters like Putin absolutely is repugnant.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
Settling just gives Russians time to regroup and rearm , Ukraine have to keep going , shit or bust. If they lose then NATO will be in it next time for sure.
What is shit and what is bust?
All wars end in a form of negotiation. You literally put down your guns and talk. Some wars end in total surrender by one side, and absolute conquest by the victor - the Allies over the Nazis, in 1945, or VJ day - then the negotiation is easy. Many wars end in truce or Armistice - Korea, WW1, then the negotiation is a lot harder
Ukraine is not going to totally defeat Russia, topple Putin and take Moscow. So then it becomes a truce or Armistice style ending. The choice for them is what is worth giving up - or not giving up - in return for peace
There is their choice, they can fight to the last man with total moral superioriy, but then they will all be dead and I'm not sure if that is the best option
Now, now, "Leon" is simply doing his job, as PB's Chief Morale Officer
Which makes him the PB equivalent of Neelix.
😀😀😀😀
Nothing depressed me more in Voyager than Neelix.
I know what you mean, but he was just unsuccessful comic relief. The Chakotay/Seven romance was silly and it did sorta fall apart towards the end. When I'm in my weekday digs and have a telly. I quite like the repeats on (I think) Pick: it's never great but still fun occasionally
Here is the comment from the journalist himself, at the end
"Hi, this is Francis Farrell, cheers for reading this article. It's been a while since I've done a field report from around Bakhmut, but this time was definitely different. For those of us who are dedicated to the victory of Ukraine, there is no point living with rose-tinted goggles on, this is what it will look like for a long time. As long as it goes on, we will be here, reporting on it as it is"
I've been making similar comments for quite some time now. The truth is that the Russians have proven much, much harder to beat than looked to be the case last Autumn. At a time when we expected them to be suffering ever more severe logistical challenges and perhaps even a collapse of morale they have been more organised, better led and more effective than they had been up to now. Someone in the Russian army is actually getting a grip. We can only hope that he falls out of favour soon.
Defending is easier than attacking. Much more so. Last year Ukraine was mostly defending and inflicted horrendous casualties on the Russians. Now it is their turn. Moving about on a modern battlefield is seriously dangerous. Drones, artillery, minefields, booby traps, it is getting almost too dangerous for humans not in armour to survive.
It remains entirely possible that Russia will have a breaking point and collapse. I really hope so. I desperately want Ukraine to win this war. It just doesn't look imminent.
Which is why we should be saying to putin surrender or we nuke you.
I am fully in favour as I believe we have 8 billion to many people A nuclear winter will cancel climate change I dont believe most of their arsenal works so most of those dying will be arseholes
Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.
(1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.
(2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.
(3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.
My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?
They are a pair of yellow belly appeasers, they would both gladly join the invaders to save their skanky skins if UK was taken over.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Leon isn't a Putin apologist, fash sympathiser or anything else.
He's just a luvvie and a professional bedwetter.
He'd have been taken to the rear in a strait jacket, had he been in the trenches during WW1. And during WW2 he'd have no doubt been hanging onto the coattails of Halifax urging us to make peace in June 1940.
Why are you all obsessed with discussing Leon? I struggle to think of a duller subject (the words about him rather than he himself)
I entirely agree, I don't want this to be "about me". It's fucking ludicrous
I am simply offering a different, less hopeful perspective on the war (than some). and I am carefully backing up my claims with actual evidence (either from Ukrainian sources, or the BBC)
On the other side there are people just hurling juvenile abuse - "collaborator", "blackshirt", "Putinist", "bedwetter", "fucking appeaser" - and offering no evidence at all
It's truly boring, and also childish
You like the attention, and perhaps seek it, or at least have sought it. The great plus in your favour is that you have something coherent to say - even if it's about aliens.
Sometimes I like the attention, perhaps if I am bored. Then I will say somethig ridiculous about sex or dinosaurs or my drug abuse or whatever
But generally, like most of us, I come here for a good informed debate, with people adducing evidence and thrashing out positions. At its best PB is brilliant at this. Sadly, PB loses its rag when it comes to Ukraine, and its like trying to talk to an angry kindergarten
And now I am out for a walk in the lovely evening sun. Later!
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
Settling just gives Russians time to regroup and rearm , Ukraine have to keep going , shit or bust. If they lose then NATO will be in it next time for sure.
What is shit and what is bust?
All wars end in a form of negotiation. You literally put down your guns and talk. Some wars end in total surrender by one side, and absolute conquest by the victor - the Allies over the Nazis, in 1945, or VJ day - then the negotiation is easy. Many wars end in truce or Armistice - Korea, WW1, then the negotiation is a lot harder
Ukraine is not going to totally defeat Russia, topple Putin and take Moscow. So then it becomes a truce or Armistice style ending. The choice for them is what is worth giving up - or not giving up - in return for peace
There is their choice, they can fight to the last man with total moral superioriy, but then they will all be dead and I'm not sure if that is the best option
No, all wars don't end in a form of negotiation. WWII ended in total surrender by both Germany and Japan.
Ukraine don't need to take Moscow, they just need to liberate their own land. Something they're already doing. Once their own land is liberated and secure, the war can be over, and they can join NATO and ensure Russia learns its lesson never to ever try this ever again.
Not sure why I’m being tagged. Everyone knows what my views are on Ukraine, just annoyed at SunilBot spamming the same post over and over. The content of it is irrelevant.
Now, now, "Leon" is simply doing his job, as PB's Chief Morale Officer
Which makes him the PB equivalent of Neelix.
😀😀😀😀
Nothing depressed me more in Voyager than Neelix.
I know what you mean, but he was just unsuccessful comic relief. The Chakotay/Seven romance was silly and it did sorta fall apart towards the end. When I'm in my weekday digs and have a telly. I quite like the repeats on (I think) Pick: it's never great but still fun occasionally
The Worf/Troi one was also crap.
Strangely, Worf/Dax worked though, as did Torres/Paris (kindof).
It's fine if the producers go for real chemistry of the actors/characters and don't scrape the bottom of the barrel.
(Shout out to Harry Kim who seemed to suffer zero character development in over seven years)
Here is the comment from the journalist himself, at the end
"Hi, this is Francis Farrell, cheers for reading this article. It's been a while since I've done a field report from around Bakhmut, but this time was definitely different. For those of us who are dedicated to the victory of Ukraine, there is no point living with rose-tinted goggles on, this is what it will look like for a long time. As long as it goes on, we will be here, reporting on it as it is"
I've been making similar comments for quite some time now. The truth is that the Russians have proven much, much harder to beat than looked to be the case last Autumn. At a time when we expected them to be suffering ever more severe logistical challenges and perhaps even a collapse of morale they have been more organised, better led and more effective than they had been up to now. Someone in the Russian army is actually getting a grip. We can only hope that he falls out of favour soon.
Defending is easier than attacking. Much more so. Last year Ukraine was mostly defending and inflicted horrendous casualties on the Russians. Now it is their turn. Moving about on a modern battlefield is seriously dangerous. Drones, artillery, minefields, booby traps, it is getting almost too dangerous for humans not in armour to survive.
It remains entirely possible that Russia will have a breaking point and collapse. I really hope so. I desperately want Ukraine to win this war. It just doesn't look imminent.
Interesting profile of Thomas Kerr who is fighting the Rutherglen by-election on behalf of the Scottish Tories. (Ruth Davidson started her political career by resigning from the BBC to fight a hopeless Glasgow by-election).
"In 2017, he went where no Tory had ever gone before when he was elected to represent Shettleston in the east end of Glasgow at the local council elections. In doing so, he swept aside two much more highly favoured and experienced SNP candidates.
"Shettleston is that district of Glasgow which only seems to pique the media’s interest every three years when Scotland’s latest multi-deprivation index is revealed.
"Before 2017, the prospect of a Tory getting in there seemed about as credible as Nicola Sturgeon’s little-known predilection for taking holidays in a camper-van."
Here is the comment from the journalist himself, at the end
"Hi, this is Francis Farrell, cheers for reading this article. It's been a while since I've done a field report from around Bakhmut, but this time was definitely different. For those of us who are dedicated to the victory of Ukraine, there is no point living with rose-tinted goggles on, this is what it will look like for a long time. As long as it goes on, we will be here, reporting on it as it is"
I've been making similar comments for quite some time now. The truth is that the Russians have proven much, much harder to beat than looked to be the case last Autumn. At a time when we expected them to be suffering ever more severe logistical challenges and perhaps even a collapse of morale they have been more organised, better led and more effective than they had been up to now. Someone in the Russian army is actually getting a grip. We can only hope that he falls out of favour soon.
Defending is easier than attacking. Much more so. Last year Ukraine was mostly defending and inflicted horrendous casualties on the Russians. Now it is their turn. Moving about on a modern battlefield is seriously dangerous. Drones, artillery, minefields, booby traps, it is getting almost too dangerous for humans not in armour to survive.
It remains entirely possible that Russia will have a breaking point and collapse. I really hope so. I desperately want Ukraine to win this war. It just doesn't look imminent.
At last! An adult in the room
You are entirely right
An adult is not someone who agrees with you. And with all respect to davidl who is normally a sensible poster russia cannot be allowed to have any sort of win here. If the do we will be doing this all over again in a few years
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
Ukraine does have problems, but it is also making solid progress in the South. And, if the Crimean land bridge is severed, then Russia is in real trouble. How does it supply the troops in Crimea or the West of the country?
Personally, I think this is very simple:
It's not our job to tell Ukraine not to fight the aggressor. If the Ukrainian people want to keep standing up to Putin, then it is moral duty to give them as much help as we can. And if they wish to make peace, then we must support them in that too.
Too many people think that our support is somehow unethical because it might prolong the war. That is a morally repugnant view.
Given that none of us (that I can work out) have a particular background in matters ethical, I think we should probably try to avoid confident declarations of moral repugnance in the views of others.
No one needs any kind of academic training in ethics to know right from wrong.
As we try to move on, I'm intrigued by the reaction of the residents of Fowey to the arrival of the Saga cruise ship "Spirit of Adventure" on Friday whose 999 passengers effectively (were they all to disembark) would double the size of the population of the town.
While some welcomed the ship and its passengers as a boost to the local economy, others were more equivocal. 18% of the homes in Fowey are second homes - as we look at the problems of property and wealth, whatever I may think of the new flats in Barking, East Ham and Ilford, the ability of locals to get on the property ladder in places like Fowey has been a problem for decades and it still is.
Now, now, "Leon" is simply doing his job, as PB's Chief Morale Officer
Which makes him the PB equivalent of Neelix.
😀😀😀😀
Nothing depressed me more in Voyager than Neelix.
I know what you mean, but he was just unsuccessful comic relief. The Chakotay/Seven romance was silly and it did sorta fall apart towards the end. When I'm in my weekday digs and have a telly. I quite like the repeats on (I think) Pick: it's never great but still fun occasionally
The Worf/Troi one was also crap.
Strangely, Worf/Dax worked though, as did Torres/Paris (kindof).
It's fine if the producers go for real chemistry of the actors/characters and don't scrape the bottom of the barrel.
(Shout out to Harry Kim who seemed to suffer zero character development in over seven years)
Indeed. I think I've gone on before about the behind-the-scenes shenanigans that lead to bad character decisions and actors departing so I won't bore everybody again. But I do agree about Torres/Paris working and the chemistry between the actors
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
Settling just gives Russians time to regroup and rearm , Ukraine have to keep going , shit or bust. If they lose then NATO will be in it next time for sure.
What is shit and what is bust?
All wars end in a form of negotiation. You literally put down your guns and talk. Some wars end in total surrender by one side, and absolute conquest by the victor - the Allies over the Nazis, in 1945, or VJ day - then the negotiation is easy. Many wars end in truce or Armistice - Korea, WW1, then the negotiation is a lot harder
Ukraine is not going to totally defeat Russia, topple Putin and take Moscow. So then it becomes a truce or Armistice style ending. The choice for them is what is worth giving up - or not giving up - in return for peace
There is their choice, they can fight to the last man with total moral superioriy, but then they will all be dead and I'm not sure if that is the best option
No, all wars don't end in a form of negotiation. WWII ended in total surrender by both Germany and Japan.
Ukraine don't need to take Moscow, they just need to liberate their own land. Something they're already doing. Once their own land is liberated and secure, the war can be over, and they can join NATO and ensure Russia learns its lesson never to ever try this ever again.
Until they’ve licked their wounds and recovered, at which point they’ll start again. Even if Ukraine are in NATO.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
The piece you linked to earlier was highlighting issues for the Ukrainians away from where their counter-assault is concentrated - where all the best men and kit currently are
You made it sound like that’s the situation everywhere; I hope you did that ignorantly
You’re also caught up in a weird sensationalism of twitX views of a video of an interview that is offensively wrong from its first sentence
OK try this then. This is also from the Kyiv Independent. A pro-Ukraine source in Ukraine. Funded by Canada, praised by the UK and EU, and so on
It's a report from the southern front. And it is way more negative than anything we generally read in the West
Sample paragraphs:
"Eighteen months into the full-scale war however, the formation, with units fighting on all three axes of the counteroffensive, is now beginning to pay a high price for its makeup of volunteers, rather than mobilized soldiers.
“It's hard to go forward, we don't have new weapons and equipment, and these days our personnel aren't being replaced,” said Ilnytskyi."
"Since Ukrainian forces first regained the initiative around Bakhmut in May, Ground Forces Commander Oleksandr Syrskyi has repeatedly claimed that the occupied city was in the process of being “encircled.” On the ground, that still looks like a distant dream.
“Everyone has their own job, their own mission,” said Lavryniuk dryly. “If they (Syrskyi) say things like that then maybe they know something we don't"
"Whatever gains the southern counteroffensive makes before culmination, both sides look set for a gruelling struggle that could last for years more.
Eighteen months in, concern is mounting among soldiers, from commanders to the rank and file, that for much of the country’s civilian population, the war is increasingly fading into the distance, even as the fighting shows no signs of dying down."
Tell me, why are the UKRAINIANS being so negative? Perhaps they, like me, have "veered to the dark side"
The issue is not that the Ukrainians are pointing out problems, that is a given.
The issue is your 2 + 2 = 5 logic.
The Ukrainians don't want to surrender. They want more ammunition, more supplies, more assistance, not less.
You take the fact there are issues and then extrapolate that to saying that Ukraine is losing the war, which is not true.
Heck as the report you quoted says, the war could last years more. The Ukrainians aren't gearing up for surrender, they're up for the fight, and they're prepared to fight for years if that is what it takes - and we can and should support them for as long as they're willing and able to fight.
The fastest way this war finishes, is for the western world to give the Ukranians every weapons system we have spare.
Just because a bunch of right and left Americans want to see ‘peace’, doesn’t mean that the Ukranians don’t want as many weapons as they can get their hands on.
I note you keep straining to pretend that American political opposition to supporting Ukraine isn't overwhelmingly coming from the MAGA infested GOP.
You'll have to resolve this next year. Circles can't be squared. It'll be hard for you to get behind the Dems but your pro Ukraine passion means you're going to have to.
Here is the comment from the journalist himself, at the end
"Hi, this is Francis Farrell, cheers for reading this article. It's been a while since I've done a field report from around Bakhmut, but this time was definitely different. For those of us who are dedicated to the victory of Ukraine, there is no point living with rose-tinted goggles on, this is what it will look like for a long time. As long as it goes on, we will be here, reporting on it as it is"
I've been making similar comments for quite some time now. The truth is that the Russians have proven much, much harder to beat than looked to be the case last Autumn. At a time when we expected them to be suffering ever more severe logistical challenges and perhaps even a collapse of morale they have been more organised, better led and more effective than they had been up to now. Someone in the Russian army is actually getting a grip. We can only hope that he falls out of favour soon.
Defending is easier than attacking. Much more so. Last year Ukraine was mostly defending and inflicted horrendous casualties on the Russians. Now it is their turn. Moving about on a modern battlefield is seriously dangerous. Drones, artillery, minefields, booby traps, it is getting almost too dangerous for humans not in armour to survive.
It remains entirely possible that Russia will have a breaking point and collapse. I really hope so. I desperately want Ukraine to win this war. It just doesn't look imminent.
At last! An adult in the room
You are entirely right
David isn't saying what you're saying, or anything different to what any else of us are saying though.
Yes was is difficult. All the more reason for us to give every bit of armour and ammunition we can to the Ukrainians.
That's not saying that Ukraine must enter negotiations or decide what to "give up" though as you are claiming.
As we try to move on, I'm intrigued by the reaction of the residents of Fowey to the arrival of the Saga cruise ship "Spirit of Adventure" on Friday whose 999 passengers effectively (were they all to disembark) would double the size of the population of the town.
While some welcomed the ship and its passengers as a boost to the local economy, others were more equivocal. 18% of the homes in Fowey are second homes - as we look at the problems of property and wealth, whatever I may think of the new flats in Barking, East Ham and Ilford, the ability of locals to get on the property ladder in places like Fowey has been a problem for decades and it still is.
As someone who grew up in padstow in cornwall perhaps I can offer an insight. When I grew up there the second home problem wasnt really an issue...what was an issue is most shops and restaurants closed over the winter. Most weren't indeed owned by local people but people from london...come may they would travel down open them up employ a few locals for as little pay as possible for the holiday season then take all the profits back to london
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
Settling just gives Russians time to regroup and rearm , Ukraine have to keep going , shit or bust. If they lose then NATO will be in it next time for sure.
What is shit and what is bust?
All wars end in a form of negotiation. You literally put down your guns and talk. Some wars end in total surrender by one side, and absolute conquest by the victor - the Allies over the Nazis, in 1945, or VJ day - then the negotiation is easy. Many wars end in truce or Armistice - Korea, WW1, then the negotiation is a lot harder
Ukraine is not going to totally defeat Russia, topple Putin and take Moscow. So then it becomes a truce or Armistice style ending. The choice for them is what is worth giving up - or not giving up - in return for peace
There is their choice, they can fight to the last man with total moral superioriy, but then they will all be dead and I'm not sure if that is the best option
No, all wars don't end in a form of negotiation. WWII ended in total surrender by both Germany and Japan.
Ukraine don't need to take Moscow, they just need to liberate their own land. Something they're already doing. Once their own land is liberated and secure, the war can be over, and they can join NATO and ensure Russia learns its lesson never to ever try this ever again.
Until they’ve licked their wounds and recovered, at which point they’ll start again. Even if Ukraine are in NATO.
No, they won't. Russia are the classic bully, they only pick on those they perceive as weaker than them.
They made a mistake in thinking Ukraine are weaker than them. Win a victory and they will come back for more, but get defeated and if Ukraine are in NATO they won't make that mistake twice.
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
I imagine the last thing the Post Office would want is an ethical person who complies with the law.
That might get all their senior management prison sentences.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
Ukraine does have problems, but it is also making solid progress in the South. And, if the Crimean land bridge is severed, then Russia is in real trouble. How does it supply the troops in Crimea or the West of the country?
Personally, I think this is very simple:
It's not our job to tell Ukraine not to fight the aggressor. If the Ukrainian people want to keep standing up to Putin, then it is moral duty to give them as much help as we can. And if they wish to make peace, then we must support them in that too.
Too many people think that our support is somehow unethical because it might prolong the war. That is a morally repugnant view.
Given that none of us (that I can work out) have a particular background in matters ethical, I think we should probably try to avoid confident declarations of moral repugnance in the views of others.
And yet you would have been one of the first to decry the US's invasion in Iran.
What is it about Vladimir Putin that you find particularly attractive?
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
Ukraine does have problems, but it is also making solid progress in the South. And, if the Crimean land bridge is severed, then Russia is in real trouble. How does it supply the troops in Crimea or the West of the country?
Personally, I think this is very simple:
It's not our job to tell Ukraine not to fight the aggressor. If the Ukrainian people want to keep standing up to Putin, then it is moral duty to give them as much help as we can. And if they wish to make peace, then we must support them in that too.
Too many people think that our support is somehow unethical because it might prolong the war. That is a morally repugnant view.
Given that none of us (that I can work out) have a particular background in matters ethical, I think we should probably try to avoid confident declarations of moral repugnance in the views of others.
No one needs any kind of academic training in ethics to know right from wrong.
It’s entirely possible to believe these two things at once
1. Putin is evil and wrong and the invasion is a moral disgrace
And
2. Unfortunately Putin is doing considerably better in Ukraine than we all hoped/anticipated 3-9 months ago
There are still reasons for positivity. The Prigozhin debacle revealed significant brittleness - and unhappiness in the ranks. Putin is losing allies in the global south as his grain embargo impacts
However my entirely amateur hunch is that Ukraine needs a major breakthrough this autumn before the war freezes into stasis for the winter. I am not convinced they have the men for ANOTHER year of deeply painful “counterattack”
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
The piece you linked to earlier was highlighting issues for the Ukrainians away from where their counter-assault is concentrated - where all the best men and kit currently are
You made it sound like that’s the situation everywhere; I hope you did that ignorantly
You’re also caught up in a weird sensationalism of twitX views of a video of an interview that is offensively wrong from its first sentence
OK try this then. This is also from the Kyiv Independent. A pro-Ukraine source in Ukraine. Funded by Canada, praised by the UK and EU, and so on
It's a report from the southern front. And it is way more negative than anything we generally read in the West
Sample paragraphs:
"Eighteen months into the full-scale war however, the formation, with units fighting on all three axes of the counteroffensive, is now beginning to pay a high price for its makeup of volunteers, rather than mobilized soldiers.
“It's hard to go forward, we don't have new weapons and equipment, and these days our personnel aren't being replaced,” said Ilnytskyi."
"Since Ukrainian forces first regained the initiative around Bakhmut in May, Ground Forces Commander Oleksandr Syrskyi has repeatedly claimed that the occupied city was in the process of being “encircled.” On the ground, that still looks like a distant dream.
“Everyone has their own job, their own mission,” said Lavryniuk dryly. “If they (Syrskyi) say things like that then maybe they know something we don't"
"Whatever gains the southern counteroffensive makes before culmination, both sides look set for a gruelling struggle that could last for years more.
Eighteen months in, concern is mounting among soldiers, from commanders to the rank and file, that for much of the country’s civilian population, the war is increasingly fading into the distance, even as the fighting shows no signs of dying down."
Tell me, why are the UKRAINIANS being so negative? Perhaps they, like me, have "veered to the dark side"
The issue is not that the Ukrainians are pointing out problems, that is a given.
The issue is your 2 + 2 = 5 logic.
The Ukrainians don't want to surrender. They want more ammunition, more supplies, more assistance, not less.
You take the fact there are issues and then extrapolate that to saying that Ukraine is losing the war, which is not true.
Heck as the report you quoted says, the war could last years more. The Ukrainians aren't gearing up for surrender, they're up for the fight, and they're prepared to fight for years if that is what it takes - and we can and should support them for as long as they're willing and able to fight.
The fastest way this war finishes, is for the western world to give the Ukranians every weapons system we have spare.
Just because a bunch of right and left Americans want to see ‘peace’, doesn’t mean that the Ukranians don’t want as many weapons as they can get their hands on.
I note you keep straining to pretend that American political opposition to supporting Ukraine isn't overwhelmingly coming from the MAGA infested GOP.
You'll have to resolve this next year. Circles can't be squared. It'll be hard for you to get behind the Dems but your pro Ukraine passion means you're going to have to.
I’m trying to take the partisanship out of it. There’s plenty of anti-war sentiment on both sides in the US.
I’ve been quite clear that I think the election will make little difference to what actually happens with regard to Ukraine in the US, although the messaging will change significantly depending on who is the president. The MIC keeps running, as it always has.
As we try to move on, I'm intrigued by the reaction of the residents of Fowey to the arrival of the Saga cruise ship "Spirit of Adventure" on Friday whose 999 passengers effectively (were they all to disembark) would double the size of the population of the town.
While some welcomed the ship and its passengers as a boost to the local economy, others were more equivocal. 18% of the homes in Fowey are second homes - as we look at the problems of property and wealth, whatever I may think of the new flats in Barking, East Ham and Ilford, the ability of locals to get on the property ladder in places like Fowey has been a problem for decades and it still is.
As someone who grew up in padstow in cornwall perhaps I can offer an insight. When I grew up there the second home problem wasnt really an issue...what was an issue is most shops and restaurants closed over the winter. Most weren't indeed owned by local people but people from london...come may they would travel down open them up employ a few locals for as little pay as possible for the holiday season then take all the profits back to london
Padstow has to be one of the most extreme cases of a tourist town in the U.K.
The train has just pulled into a conurbation with a large number of very high tower block flats being built, like the area near Battersea Power Station in London. I thought it was Manchester. Turns out it's Leeds. The country is changing before my eyes.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
Ukraine does have problems, but it is also making solid progress in the South. And, if the Crimean land bridge is severed, then Russia is in real trouble. How does it supply the troops in Crimea or the West of the country?
Personally, I think this is very simple:
It's not our job to tell Ukraine not to fight the aggressor. If the Ukrainian people want to keep standing up to Putin, then it is moral duty to give them as much help as we can. And if they wish to make peace, then we must support them in that too.
Too many people think that our support is somehow unethical because it might prolong the war. That is a morally repugnant view.
Given that none of us (that I can work out) have a particular background in matters ethical, I think we should probably try to avoid confident declarations of moral repugnance in the views of others.
No one needs any kind of academic training in ethics to know right from wrong.
It’s entirely possible to believe these two things at once
1. Putin is evil and wrong and the invasion is a moral disgrace
And
2. Unfortunately Putin is doing considerably better in Ukraine than we all hoped/anticipated 3-9 months ago
There are still reasons for positivity. The Prigozhin debacle revealed significant brittleness - and unhappiness in the ranks. Putin is losing allies in the global south as his grain embargo impacts
However my entirely amateur hunch is that Ukraine needs a major breakthrough this autumn before the war freezes into stasis for the winter. I am not convinced they have the men for ANOTHER year of deeply painful “counterattack”
Why not?
If Russia is losing equipment and people faster than Ukraine are, and Ukraine can get replacement equipment from the rest of the world which Russia can't, then why can't they go again next year?
As we try to move on, I'm intrigued by the reaction of the residents of Fowey to the arrival of the Saga cruise ship "Spirit of Adventure" on Friday whose 999 passengers effectively (were they all to disembark) would double the size of the population of the town.
While some welcomed the ship and its passengers as a boost to the local economy, others were more equivocal. 18% of the homes in Fowey are second homes - as we look at the problems of property and wealth, whatever I may think of the new flats in Barking, East Ham and Ilford, the ability of locals to get on the property ladder in places like Fowey has been a problem for decades and it still is.
As someone who grew up in padstow in cornwall perhaps I can offer an insight. When I grew up there the second home problem wasnt really an issue...what was an issue is most shops and restaurants closed over the winter. Most weren't indeed owned by local people but people from london...come may they would travel down open them up employ a few locals for as little pay as possible for the holiday season then take all the profits back to london
Padstow has to be one of the most extreme cases of a tourist town in the U.K.
It is now when I grew up there it was a working fishing port. Now its a marina. art galleries and rick fucking stein
It’s quite funny, Leon is a writer, a journalist, a player. He comes on with some controversial post about UFOs, crazy dogs, quasi-negativity to Ukraine and everyone spends a few posts telling him nobody cares and then two threads discussing the posts he makes.
Probably doesn’t really remotely care about the point he’s making but loves that everyone then dances to what he posts.
He’s a master of diverting any thread to his whim and everyone follows. He’s laughing. Trouts on a hook. I doff my cap to his puppetry.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
The piece you linked to earlier was highlighting issues for the Ukrainians away from where their counter-assault is concentrated - where all the best men and kit currently are
You made it sound like that’s the situation everywhere; I hope you did that ignorantly
You’re also caught up in a weird sensationalism of twitX views of a video of an interview that is offensively wrong from its first sentence
OK try this then. This is also from the Kyiv Independent. A pro-Ukraine source in Ukraine. Funded by Canada, praised by the UK and EU, and so on
It's a report from the southern front. And it is way more negative than anything we generally read in the West
Sample paragraphs:
"Eighteen months into the full-scale war however, the formation, with units fighting on all three axes of the counteroffensive, is now beginning to pay a high price for its makeup of volunteers, rather than mobilized soldiers.
“It's hard to go forward, we don't have new weapons and equipment, and these days our personnel aren't being replaced,” said Ilnytskyi."
"Since Ukrainian forces first regained the initiative around Bakhmut in May, Ground Forces Commander Oleksandr Syrskyi has repeatedly claimed that the occupied city was in the process of being “encircled.” On the ground, that still looks like a distant dream.
“Everyone has their own job, their own mission,” said Lavryniuk dryly. “If they (Syrskyi) say things like that then maybe they know something we don't"
"Whatever gains the southern counteroffensive makes before culmination, both sides look set for a gruelling struggle that could last for years more.
Eighteen months in, concern is mounting among soldiers, from commanders to the rank and file, that for much of the country’s civilian population, the war is increasingly fading into the distance, even as the fighting shows no signs of dying down."
Tell me, why are the UKRAINIANS being so negative? Perhaps they, like me, have "veered to the dark side"
The issue is not that the Ukrainians are pointing out problems, that is a given.
The issue is your 2 + 2 = 5 logic.
The Ukrainians don't want to surrender. They want more ammunition, more supplies, more assistance, not less.
You take the fact there are issues and then extrapolate that to saying that Ukraine is losing the war, which is not true.
Heck as the report you quoted says, the war could last years more. The Ukrainians aren't gearing up for surrender, they're up for the fight, and they're prepared to fight for years if that is what it takes - and we can and should support them for as long as they're willing and able to fight.
The fastest way this war finishes, is for the western world to give the Ukranians every weapons system we have spare.
Just because a bunch of right and left Americans want to see ‘peace’, doesn’t mean that the Ukranians don’t want as many weapons as they can get their hands on.
I note you keep straining to pretend that American political opposition to supporting Ukraine isn't overwhelmingly coming from the MAGA infested GOP.
You'll have to resolve this next year. Circles can't be squared. It'll be hard for you to get behind the Dems but your pro Ukraine passion means you're going to have to.
I’m trying to take the partisanship out of it. There’s plenty of anti-war sentiment on both sides in the US.
I’ve been quite clear that I think the election will make little difference to what actually happens with regard to Ukraine in the US, although the messaging will change significantly depending on who is the president. The MIC keeps running, as it always has.
The MIC doesn't equal sending support where it's needed.
It's entirely possible an isolationist America First POTUS cuts off aid to Ukraine while feeding the MIC domestically.
Ukraine is too important, we should all hope the winner of the next Presidential election is someone with Ukraine's interests at heart.
That doesn't have to be a Democrat. There's plenty of good GOP candidates too on this subject such as Haley, Christie etc
But Trump, Ramaswamy etc who are calling for Ukraine to surrender we have to hope they get defeated.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
The piece you linked to earlier was highlighting issues for the Ukrainians away from where their counter-assault is concentrated - where all the best men and kit currently are
You made it sound like that’s the situation everywhere; I hope you did that ignorantly
You’re also caught up in a weird sensationalism of twitX views of a video of an interview that is offensively wrong from its first sentence
OK try this then. This is also from the Kyiv Independent. A pro-Ukraine source in Ukraine. Funded by Canada, praised by the UK and EU, and so on
It's a report from the southern front. And it is way more negative than anything we generally read in the West
Sample paragraphs:
"Eighteen months into the full-scale war however, the formation, with units fighting on all three axes of the counteroffensive, is now beginning to pay a high price for its makeup of volunteers, rather than mobilized soldiers.
“It's hard to go forward, we don't have new weapons and equipment, and these days our personnel aren't being replaced,” said Ilnytskyi."
"Since Ukrainian forces first regained the initiative around Bakhmut in May, Ground Forces Commander Oleksandr Syrskyi has repeatedly claimed that the occupied city was in the process of being “encircled.” On the ground, that still looks like a distant dream.
“Everyone has their own job, their own mission,” said Lavryniuk dryly. “If they (Syrskyi) say things like that then maybe they know something we don't"
"Whatever gains the southern counteroffensive makes before culmination, both sides look set for a gruelling struggle that could last for years more.
Eighteen months in, concern is mounting among soldiers, from commanders to the rank and file, that for much of the country’s civilian population, the war is increasingly fading into the distance, even as the fighting shows no signs of dying down."
Tell me, why are the UKRAINIANS being so negative? Perhaps they, like me, have "veered to the dark side"
The issue is not that the Ukrainians are pointing out problems, that is a given.
The issue is your 2 + 2 = 5 logic.
The Ukrainians don't want to surrender. They want more ammunition, more supplies, more assistance, not less.
You take the fact there are issues and then extrapolate that to saying that Ukraine is losing the war, which is not true.
Heck as the report you quoted says, the war could last years more. The Ukrainians aren't gearing up for surrender, they're up for the fight, and they're prepared to fight for years if that is what it takes - and we can and should support them for as long as they're willing and able to fight.
The fastest way this war finishes, is for the western world to give the Ukranians every weapons system we have spare.
Just because a bunch of right and left Americans want to see ‘peace’, doesn’t mean that the Ukranians don’t want as many weapons as they can get their hands on.
I note you keep straining to pretend that American political opposition to supporting Ukraine isn't overwhelmingly coming from the MAGA infested GOP.
You'll have to resolve this next year. Circles can't be squared. It'll be hard for you to get behind the Dems but your pro Ukraine passion means you're going to have to.
I’m trying to take the partisanship out of it. There’s plenty of anti-war sentiment on both sides in the US.
I’ve been quite clear that I think the election will make little difference to what actually happens with regard to Ukraine in the US, although the messaging will change significantly depending on who is the president. The MIC keeps running, as it always has.
You're kidding yourself to avoid having to support the Dems. But there's time. The election isn't till next year and the GOP might wise up and pick a non Trump MAGA candidate.
As we try to move on, I'm intrigued by the reaction of the residents of Fowey to the arrival of the Saga cruise ship "Spirit of Adventure" on Friday whose 999 passengers effectively (were they all to disembark) would double the size of the population of the town.
While some welcomed the ship and its passengers as a boost to the local economy, others were more equivocal. 18% of the homes in Fowey are second homes - as we look at the problems of property and wealth, whatever I may think of the new flats in Barking, East Ham and Ilford, the ability of locals to get on the property ladder in places like Fowey has been a problem for decades and it still is.
As someone who grew up in padstow in cornwall perhaps I can offer an insight. When I grew up there the second home problem wasnt really an issue...what was an issue is most shops and restaurants closed over the winter. Most weren't indeed owned by local people but people from london...come may they would travel down open them up employ a few locals for as little pay as possible for the holiday season then take all the profits back to london
Padstow has to be one of the most extreme cases of a tourist town in the U.K.
It is now when I grew up there it was a working fishing port. Now its a marina. art galleries and rick fucking stein
I call it SteinWorld
The problem is the extreme desire to not allow any development and for economic growth.
When I lived in Malmesbury, there was actual anger expressed by an incomer that the locals still had a pub in the middle of the town.
Here is the comment from the journalist himself, at the end
"Hi, this is Francis Farrell, cheers for reading this article. It's been a while since I've done a field report from around Bakhmut, but this time was definitely different. For those of us who are dedicated to the victory of Ukraine, there is no point living with rose-tinted goggles on, this is what it will look like for a long time. As long as it goes on, we will be here, reporting on it as it is"
I've been making similar comments for quite some time now. The truth is that the Russians have proven much, much harder to beat than looked to be the case last Autumn. At a time when we expected them to be suffering ever more severe logistical challenges and perhaps even a collapse of morale they have been more organised, better led and more effective than they had been up to now. Someone in the Russian army is actually getting a grip. We can only hope that he falls out of favour soon.
Defending is easier than attacking. Much more so. Last year Ukraine was mostly defending and inflicted horrendous casualties on the Russians. Now it is their turn. Moving about on a modern battlefield is seriously dangerous. Drones, artillery, minefields, booby traps, it is getting almost too dangerous for humans not in armour to survive.
It remains entirely possible that Russia will have a breaking point and collapse. I really hope so. I desperately want Ukraine to win this war. It just doesn't look imminent.
At last! An adult in the room
You are entirely right
Yes and no.
I'm of the cynical view apparently unresolved conflicts actually work to the advantage of many of those involved.
That's war for you - the losers are the ones doing the fighting and the dying. The winners are the ones providing the guns. Arms manufacturers and suppliers are growing rich providing equipment to both sides - no one can breathe a syllable about cutting the defence budget which is now as sacred as the NHS and indeed all the clamour is to spend more yet the public finances are as we know in a shambles with increasing costs on the NHS of an ageing population.
Perversely, the current impasse helps Zelenskyy and Putin as both can appear as war leaders to their electorates and everything they do and say can be framed in that context and both can play the patriotic card.
Did Putin really think Ukraine would collapse in 72 hours? He wouldn't be the first aggressor to get that wrong and I fear he won't be the last.
Even the economic impact has been largely mitigated or controlled - in effect, we've bottled the conflict up much as happened in the Iran-Iraq War. The early threats of tactical nuclear weapons and the like or of Russian attacks on Poland have receded - the "rules" of the game are clear. Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO and as long as Russia does nothing stupid, the conflict can remain brutal and local.
Unprovoked aggression, however, cannot be allowed to stand - it didn't in the Falklands and Kuwait but what does "victory" look like? A post-Putin leader in Moscow and a unilateral withdrawal of all Russian forces beyond the Ukraine border would seem the more likely but will that be how it is? To be blunt, the last thing we need is instability or chaos in a nuclear power - the potential for that not ending well is obvious.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
Go ahead and try to sell it, doubt you can people are already squeezed and wont buy the touted bollocks of it coming of the top 1% because they know its a lie
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
The piece you linked to earlier was highlighting issues for the Ukrainians away from where their counter-assault is concentrated - where all the best men and kit currently are
You made it sound like that’s the situation everywhere; I hope you did that ignorantly
You’re also caught up in a weird sensationalism of twitX views of a video of an interview that is offensively wrong from its first sentence
OK try this then. This is also from the Kyiv Independent. A pro-Ukraine source in Ukraine. Funded by Canada, praised by the UK and EU, and so on
It's a report from the southern front. And it is way more negative than anything we generally read in the West
Sample paragraphs:
"Eighteen months into the full-scale war however, the formation, with units fighting on all three axes of the counteroffensive, is now beginning to pay a high price for its makeup of volunteers, rather than mobilized soldiers.
“It's hard to go forward, we don't have new weapons and equipment, and these days our personnel aren't being replaced,” said Ilnytskyi."
"Since Ukrainian forces first regained the initiative around Bakhmut in May, Ground Forces Commander Oleksandr Syrskyi has repeatedly claimed that the occupied city was in the process of being “encircled.” On the ground, that still looks like a distant dream.
“Everyone has their own job, their own mission,” said Lavryniuk dryly. “If they (Syrskyi) say things like that then maybe they know something we don't"
"Whatever gains the southern counteroffensive makes before culmination, both sides look set for a gruelling struggle that could last for years more.
Eighteen months in, concern is mounting among soldiers, from commanders to the rank and file, that for much of the country’s civilian population, the war is increasingly fading into the distance, even as the fighting shows no signs of dying down."
Tell me, why are the UKRAINIANS being so negative? Perhaps they, like me, have "veered to the dark side"
The issue is not that the Ukrainians are pointing out problems, that is a given.
The issue is your 2 + 2 = 5 logic.
The Ukrainians don't want to surrender. They want more ammunition, more supplies, more assistance, not less.
You take the fact there are issues and then extrapolate that to saying that Ukraine is losing the war, which is not true.
Heck as the report you quoted says, the war could last years more. The Ukrainians aren't gearing up for surrender, they're up for the fight, and they're prepared to fight for years if that is what it takes - and we can and should support them for as long as they're willing and able to fight.
The fastest way this war finishes, is for the western world to give the Ukranians every weapons system we have spare.
Just because a bunch of right and left Americans want to see ‘peace’, doesn’t mean that the Ukranians don’t want as many weapons as they can get their hands on.
I note you keep straining to pretend that American political opposition to supporting Ukraine isn't overwhelmingly coming from the MAGA infested GOP.
You'll have to resolve this next year. Circles can't be squared. It'll be hard for you to get behind the Dems but your pro Ukraine passion means you're going to have to.
I’m trying to take the partisanship out of it. There’s plenty of anti-war sentiment on both sides in the US.
I’ve been quite clear that I think the election will make little difference to what actually happens with regard to Ukraine in the US, although the messaging will change significantly depending on who is the president. The MIC keeps running, as it always has.
The MIC doesn't equal sending support where it's needed.
It's entirely possible an isolationist America First POTUS cuts off aid to Ukraine while feeding the MIC domestically.
Ukraine is too important, we should all hope the winner of the next Presidential election is someone with Ukraine's interests at heart.
That doesn't have to be a Democrat. There's plenty of good GOP candidates too on this subject such as Haley, Christie etc
But Trump, Ramaswamy etc who are calling for Ukraine to surrender we have to hope they get defeated.
Ideally yes but it is about time Europe stopped relying on the US not electing isolationist Presidents and started funding the defence of Europe properly rather than relying on Americans to do it. Germany especially
I think he'd be unwise to stand - he's not a natural administrator, and the Mayor position only offers limited scope for left-wing policies. But remember it's FPTP. The starting position on those figures is Khan 40 Corbyn 33, Hall 22 - I know it's not a VI poll (there will be a big overlap in the Khan and Corbyn "likes"), but that's probably a fair reflection of attitudes. His standing doesn't on those figures remotely lead to Hall winning, and he only needs a 4% swing to put him first.
His chance are however much better IMO in Islington North. Lots of people who are normally Labour voters and some who aren't (notably Greens, who are strong in the constituency) would be relaxed about having a sole independent leftie voice in Parliament, fulfilling much the same function as Caroline Lucas. I doubt if Starmer would really care too much.
I'm in Islington North, and part of me would love him to stand. If he does, I'll be pleased to be at the polling station at the scrake of dawn for my first ever vote for Labour, and as the first time in a constituency where my vote will ever have the chance of making a difference.
If ever it was the time for grown-up, sensible government then surely it is now? I don't care if Starmer is boring, he's much more likely to be competent than the current lot. And Corbyn, much as his independent spirit & contrarian voice may have been valued on the backbenches in the past, is no longer a member of the Labour party. Voting for him won't help get to a Labour majority government. Why risk it?
Leon isn't a Putin apologist, fash sympathiser or anything else.
He's just a luvvie and a professional bedwetter.
He'd have been taken to the rear in a strait jacket, had he been in the trenches during WW1. And during WW2 he'd have no doubt been hanging onto the coattails of Halifax urging us to make peace in June 1940.
Had Germany have invaded you know Leon would have been a collaborator.
So would I in fairness, far too cowardly to stand up to oppressors, me.
Bah, I would have foreseen the successful German invasion and would have collaborated BEFORE the invasion, to secure the best outcome for me and my family.
As we try to move on, I'm intrigued by the reaction of the residents of Fowey to the arrival of the Saga cruise ship "Spirit of Adventure" on Friday whose 999 passengers effectively (were they all to disembark) would double the size of the population of the town.
While some welcomed the ship and its passengers as a boost to the local economy, others were more equivocal. 18% of the homes in Fowey are second homes - as we look at the problems of property and wealth, whatever I may think of the new flats in Barking, East Ham and Ilford, the ability of locals to get on the property ladder in places like Fowey has been a problem for decades and it still is.
As someone who grew up in padstow in cornwall perhaps I can offer an insight. When I grew up there the second home problem wasnt really an issue...what was an issue is most shops and restaurants closed over the winter. Most weren't indeed owned by local people but people from london...come may they would travel down open them up employ a few locals for as little pay as possible for the holiday season then take all the profits back to london
Padstow has to be one of the most extreme cases of a tourist town in the U.K.
It is now when I grew up there it was a working fishing port. Now its a marina. art galleries and rick fucking stein
I call it SteinWorld
The problem is the extreme desire to not allow any development and for economic growth.
When I lived in Malmesbury, there was actual anger expressed by an incomer that the locals still had a pub in the middle of the town.
While I was there the place doubled in size....then it went all yuppy when royals and cameron started to visit then it became kensington on sea. The house I grew up in was a 2 bedroom prefab bungalow....my mother enquired about right to buy after living there 30 years...they told her well with the discount it will only cost you 600k
Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.
(1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.
(2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.
(3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.
My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?
They are a pair of yellow belly appeasers, they would both gladly join the invaders to save their skanky skins if UK was taken over.
I do not think this. I do want to understand the rationale for Ukraine surrendering at this point and why this might be better for Ukraine than continuing the killing. Thing is, I'm not hearing the rationale from two commentators on this forum that presumably should be making that rationale, given they imply a surrender to Russia is best for Ukraine.
There seems to be increasing talk among Trump-adjacent people about the inevitability of going to war with the drug cartels. It could be a weak point for Biden in the general election.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
Go ahead and try to sell it, doubt you can people are already squeezed and wont buy the touted bollocks of it coming of the top 1% because they know its a lie
We don’t have manifestos yet, but parties who are likely to increase tax (albeit not hugely) are on 62% in the polls.
This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front
Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source
"It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."
Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source
It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.
The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
Can you not read?
I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front
Give them more and better weapons. It’s existential.
And damn good value for money, from a Western perspective.
It is very hard to see the deaths of 100,000s of men and women as “damn good value for money” - whatever your perspective on the war
I really question some of these western sentiments
Do you want the Ukrainians to surrender right away?
All Leon is doing is questioning whether the Ukrainians should settle at some point or move back quite a long way.
He's also intimating that the Ukes are definitely going to lose, so should cut their losses
And he's talking up the hundred billion views of the Carson Orban interview that's basically Putin approved propaganda
He'd been veering too close to the dark side for my liking since his return
This is where PB loses its mind. I am pointing out that Ukraine has significant problems on its eastern front - coz their resources are stretched - and I did that citing a pro-Ukraine source! The Kyiv Independent
Meanwhile I wondered if we are really seeing a breakthrough in the south. TBH the situation on the ground is hard to discern, and there are conflicting accounts, some of the more pessimistic appraisals come, again, from Ukrainians. The evidence I provided for this came from that well known Putnist apologiser-media, the BBC
And becuause of this I am "veering to the dark side" like I have signed up for The Wagner Group
Honestly, get a grip
Ukraine does have problems, but it is also making solid progress in the South. And, if the Crimean land bridge is severed, then Russia is in real trouble. How does it supply the troops in Crimea or the West of the country?
Personally, I think this is very simple:
It's not our job to tell Ukraine not to fight the aggressor. If the Ukrainian people want to keep standing up to Putin, then it is moral duty to give them as much help as we can. And if they wish to make peace, then we must support them in that too.
Too many people think that our support is somehow unethical because it might prolong the war. That is a morally repugnant view.
Given that none of us (that I can work out) have a particular background in matters ethical, I think we should probably try to avoid confident declarations of moral repugnance in the views of others.
No one needs any kind of academic training in ethics to know right from wrong.
It’s entirely possible to believe these two things at once
1. Putin is evil and wrong and the invasion is a moral disgrace
And
2. Unfortunately Putin is doing considerably better in Ukraine than we all hoped/anticipated 3-9 months ago
There are still reasons for positivity. The Prigozhin debacle revealed significant brittleness - and unhappiness in the ranks. Putin is losing allies in the global south as his grain embargo impacts
However my entirely amateur hunch is that Ukraine needs a major breakthrough this autumn before the war freezes into stasis for the winter. I am not convinced they have the men for ANOTHER year of deeply painful “counterattack”
I think the consensus view for ages has been it will be a long and bloody struggle to get Russia out of Ukraine, with success far from guaranteed.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
I asked before for him to put a figure on how much more he felt we needed to fully fund it all....answer came there none
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
Go ahead and try to sell it, doubt you can people are already squeezed and wont buy the touted bollocks of it coming of the top 1% because they know its a lie
We don’t have manifestos yet, but parties who are likely to increase tax (albeit not hugely) are on 62% in the polls.
And none of those manifesto's will have tax rises because we already give too much to the fucking state. It is time the state stopped doing a lot of shit
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
The biggest miscarriage of justice in English history. That is the Post Office's legacy.
The bastards still don't get it and while I am generally a gentle soul all in favour of the law and behaving well and so forth, the Sicilian side of me quite fancies applying the thumbscrews to these callous numbskulls. And then making them sleep on a bed of nettles and brambles, while smeared in jam. In the heat. Next to a wasp's nest.
Anyway I was out having my Sunday lunch and in true Leon style I offer this up -
There seems to be increasing talk among Trump-adjacent people about the inevitability of going to war with the drug cartels. It could be a weak point for Biden in the general election.
War on the drug cartels plays well with his base, but surely most rational US voters see it as a completely bollocks idea. We tried a War on Drugs: drugs won and the voters noticed. Much of the country supports drug legalisation. Meanwhile, American isolationists aren’t going to be very excited by the idea of invading another country. Old-school Republicans are horrified at the nonsense of the idea.
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
The biggest miscarriage of justice in English history. That is the Post Office's legacy.
The bastards still don't get it and while I am generally a gentle soul all in favour of the law and behaving well and so forth, the Sicilian side of me quite fancies applying the thumbscrews to these callous numbskulls. And then making them sleep on a bed of nettles and brambles, while smeared in jam. In the heat. Next to a wasp's nest.
Anyway I was out having my Sunday lunch and in true Leon style I offer this up -
And for all you PB brains where might this be?
I don't know, it's like my lunch, all on its side!
Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.
(1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.
(2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.
(3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.
My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?
They are a pair of yellow belly appeasers, they would both gladly join the invaders to save their skanky skins if UK was taken over.
I do not think this. I do want to understand the rationale for Ukraine surrendering at this point and why this might be better for Ukraine than continuing the killing. Thing is, I'm not hearing the rationale from two commentators on this forum that presumably should be making that rationale, given they imply a surrender to Russia is best for Ukraine.
It was a genuine question.
At least you’re polite and apparently sane. So I’ll answer
I never mentioned surrender! Ever (I don’t think). Or if I did it was hyperbole or a figure of speech
I don’t believe either side can win this. Or only at such tremendous human cost you have to wonder if it is a victory at all. So no one needs to surrender
The basis of any negotiated peace will likely be the same next week as it will be in a year. Russia gets to keep Crimea and maybe the Donbas (subject to referendums?). Ukraine gets to join NATO (asap) and eventually the EU, so they know Putin can never threaten them again
The other items to be resolved as and when
Alternatively both sides will freeze positions on a tacitly agreed line without ever declaring peace. As in Korea
I can see one more positive possible outcome. If Ukraine can break through this year and cut the azov lines from Russia to Crimea. That would be a game changer. But these reports from pessimistic Ukrainian journalists tell me that is sadly unlikely. But we can pray
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
The biggest miscarriage of justice in English history. That is the Post Office's legacy.
The bastards still don't get it and while I am generally a gentle soul all in favour of the law and behaving well and so forth, the Sicilian side of me quite fancies applying the thumbscrews to these callous numbskulls. And then making them sleep on a bed of nettles and brambles, while smeared in jam. In the heat. Next to a wasp's nest.
Anyway I was out having my Sunday lunch and in true Leon style I offer this up -
And for all you PB brains where might this be?
Considers he should cook cyclefree some proper food
Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.
(1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.
(2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.
(3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.
My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?
They are a pair of yellow belly appeasers, they would both gladly join the invaders to save their skanky skins if UK was taken over.
I do not think this. I do want to understand the rationale for Ukraine surrendering at this point and why this might be better for Ukraine than continuing the killing. Thing is, I'm not hearing the rationale from two commentators on this forum that presumably should be making that rationale, given they imply a surrender to Russia is best for Ukraine.
It was a genuine question.
At least you’re polite and apparently sane. So I’ll answer
I never mentioned surrender! Ever (I don’t think). Or if I did it was hyperbole or a figure of speech
I don’t believe either side can win this. Or only at such tremendous human cost you have to wonder if it is a victory at all. So no one needs to surrender
The basis of any negotiated peace will likely be the same next week as it will be in a year. Russia gets to keep Crimea and maybe the Donbas (subject to referendums?). Ukraine gets to join NATO (asap) and eventually the EU, so they know Putin can never threaten them again
The other items to be resolved as and when
Alternatively both sides will freeze positions on a tacitly agreed line without ever declaring peace. As in Korea
I can see one more positive possible outcome. It Ukraine can break through this year and cut the azov lines from Russia to Crimea. That would be a game changer. But these reports from pessimistic Ukrainian journalists tell me that is sadly unlikely. But we can pray
But if Ukraine isn't to surrender, it has to fight on. How do you square that?
There seems to be increasing talk among Trump-adjacent people about the inevitability of going to war with the drug cartels. It could be a weak point for Biden in the general election.
War on the drug cartels plays well with his base, but surely most rational US voters see it as a completely bollocks idea. We tried a War on Drugs: drugs won and the voters noticed. Much of the country supports drug legalisation. Meanwhile, American isolationists aren’t going to be very excited by the idea of invading another country. Old-school Republicans are horrified at the nonsense of the idea.
Drug legalisation is absolutely impossible and insanely dangerous in the face of new drugs like fentanyl and tranq
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
The biggest miscarriage of justice in English history. That is the Post Office's legacy.
The bastards still don't get it and while I am generally a gentle soul all in favour of the law and behaving well and so forth, the Sicilian side of me quite fancies applying the thumbscrews to these callous numbskulls. And then making them sleep on a bed of nettles and brambles, while smeared in jam. In the heat. Next to a wasp's nest.
Anyway I was out having my Sunday lunch and in true Leon style I offer this up -
And for all you PB brains where might this be?
Considers he should cook cyclefree some proper food
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
My own view is that if the Government is spending 45% of national income, that ought to be quite sufficient to fund public services. Attlee’s government spent a lower proportion.
I have no desire at all to pay more in tax than I presently do.
There seems to be increasing talk among Trump-adjacent people about the inevitability of going to war with the drug cartels. It could be a weak point for Biden in the general election.
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
The biggest miscarriage of justice in English history. That is the Post Office's legacy.
The bastards still don't get it and while I am generally a gentle soul all in favour of the law and behaving well and so forth, the Sicilian side of me quite fancies applying the thumbscrews to these callous numbskulls. And then making them sleep on a bed of nettles and brambles, while smeared in jam. In the heat. Next to a wasp's nest.
Anyway I was out having my Sunday lunch and in true Leon style I offer this up -
And for all you PB brains where might this be?
Considers he should cook cyclefree some proper food
Please feel free!
chuckles if you are down in devon just shout maybe I could have southam and marquee mark over to make for a lively discussion as both live near
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
The biggest miscarriage of justice in English history. That is the Post Office's legacy.
The bastards still don't get it and while I am generally a gentle soul all in favour of the law and behaving well and so forth, the Sicilian side of me quite fancies applying the thumbscrews to these callous numbskulls. And then making them sleep on a bed of nettles and brambles, while smeared in jam. In the heat. Next to a wasp's nest.
Anyway I was out having my Sunday lunch and in true Leon style I offer this up -
And for all you PB brains where might this be?
I don't know, it's like my lunch, all on its side!
Guessing it's a wood of some sort?
Well not quite. The owner of the place where it is found was obsessed with large engines and kept them next to the kitchen until the family told him not to be so silly.
It is the place to be on a hot day. 27 degrees here on the beach this afternoon.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
My own view is that if the Government is spending 45% of national income, that ought to be quite sufficient to fund public services. Attlee’s government spent a lower proportion.
I have no desire at all to pay more in tax than I presently do.
Some seem to think gdp should belong to the government and they just award us some pocket money. I cant see how almost 50% isnt enough
Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.
(1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.
(2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.
(3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.
My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?
They are a pair of yellow belly appeasers, they would both gladly join the invaders to save their skanky skins if UK was taken over.
I do not think this. I do want to understand the rationale for Ukraine surrendering at this point and why this might be better for Ukraine than continuing the killing. Thing is, I'm not hearing the rationale from two commentators on this forum that presumably should be making that rationale, given they imply a surrender to Russia is best for Ukraine.
It was a genuine question.
At least you’re polite and apparently sane. So I’ll answer
I never mentioned surrender! Ever (I don’t think). Or if I did it was hyperbole or a figure of speech
I don’t believe either side can win this. Or only at such tremendous human cost you have to wonder if it is a victory at all. So no one needs to surrender
The basis of any negotiated peace will likely be the same next week as it will be in a year. Russia gets to keep Crimea and maybe the Donbas (subject to referendums?). Ukraine gets to join NATO (asap) and eventually the EU, so they know Putin can never threaten them again
The other items to be resolved as and when
Alternatively both sides will freeze positions on a tacitly agreed line without ever declaring peace. As in Korea
I can see one more positive possible outcome. It Ukraine can break through this year and cut the azov lines from Russia to Crimea. That would be a game changer. But these reports from pessimistic Ukrainian journalists tell me that is sadly unlikely. But we can pray
But if Ukraine isn't to surrender, it has to fight on. How do you square that?
Did either side surrender in Korea? No. They just agreed to stop fighting on a particular frozen line. And nothing else
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
The biggest miscarriage of justice in English history. That is the Post Office's legacy.
The bastards still don't get it and while I am generally a gentle soul all in favour of the law and behaving well and so forth, the Sicilian side of me quite fancies applying the thumbscrews to these callous numbskulls. And then making them sleep on a bed of nettles and brambles, while smeared in jam. In the heat. Next to a wasp's nest.
Anyway I was out having my Sunday lunch and in true Leon style I offer this up -
The train has just pulled into a conurbation with a large number of very high tower block flats being built, like the area near Battersea Power Station in London. I thought it was Manchester. Turns out it's Leeds. The country is changing before my eyes.
Bridgewater Place is the only really tall block. Candle House (the cylinder near the station) is 20 floors plus the roof terrace. Everything else is much more modest.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
That and productivity.
From the David Smith piece GW mentioned earlier:
Output per hour worked: USA £59 France, Germany £56 UK £47
Fix that, and the sums become a lot easier. Countries can choose to spend the money on megabucks wealth or taking all of August as holiday. Or something else. It's that simple and that difficult.
But it does require acknowledgement by the UK that, at several points in the past (plenty of blame to go round), we have collectively screwed up.
Funnily enough, importing 5m minimum wage workers over the past decade will do that.
Fewer than 2mn workers in the UK are paid minimum wage so something about this doesn't add up!
It never fails to amuse me that Sandpit complains similtaneously about UK’s demographic burden and “minimum wage” immigration…
…while posting from the UAE.
One thing we could learn from the UAE is that you don't need to offer any pathway to citizenship for migrant workers.
Having seen both systems, the way you do it is to offer full immigration with a high minimum wage, say £40k, or to graduates on training schemes. Category 1.
To deal with shortages in low-wage sectors, you do what the Australians do and offer six-month working visas to under-30s, with the requirement to leave afterwards, and strict enforcement of future visa rejections to anyone overstaying. Category 2.
For specific issues like nurses, allow 100k Filipinos Cat 1 immigration. They’re going to integrate well, and are generally not problematic communities.
The real problem, is that it seems to be actually impossible to deport anyone from the UK at the moment.
UAE has made huge strides in the past few years, towards offering something close to permanent residency to those who contribute. If you can earn $10k a month, you can get a 10-year renewable “Golden Visa”, also there’s visa by investment of $500k or so in business or property.
That was the UK system until ~10 years ago, wasn't it? When you could get a Tier 1 "High Value Migrant - General" visa by having a postgraduate degree and earning 50% more than the median salary (I think it was roughly £37k when a friend went through it around 2008, would probably be more like 45k now).
But that was shut down for everyone apart from those with £2m to invest or those who had "internationally-recognised exceptional talent" (ie. you were famous or had friends in high places).
All other UK visas are tied to a specific employment contract (so are equivalent to the American H-1B) or a specific course of study.
That Tier 1 HVM General visa seems to me to be a no-brainer to bring back. We're talking about skilled workers with high earning potential / no recourse to public funds / pay to use the NHS / pathway to citizenship if you stay & meet the earnings requirements for five years continuously. There's no downside for the UK there, is there?
Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.
(1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.
(2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.
(3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.
My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?
They are a pair of yellow belly appeasers, they would both gladly join the invaders to save their skanky skins if UK was taken over.
I do not think this. I do want to understand the rationale for Ukraine surrendering at this point and why this might be better for Ukraine than continuing the killing. Thing is, I'm not hearing the rationale from two commentators on this forum that presumably should be making that rationale, given they imply a surrender to Russia is best for Ukraine.
It was a genuine question.
At least you’re polite and apparently sane. So I’ll answer
I never mentioned surrender! Ever (I don’t think). Or if I did it was hyperbole or a figure of speech
I don’t believe either side can win this. Or only at such tremendous human cost you have to wonder if it is a victory at all. So no one needs to surrender
The basis of any negotiated peace will likely be the same next week as it will be in a year. Russia gets to keep Crimea and maybe the Donbas (subject to referendums?). Ukraine gets to join NATO (asap) and eventually the EU, so they know Putin can never threaten them again
The other items to be resolved as and when
Alternatively both sides will freeze positions on a tacitly agreed line without ever declaring peace. As in Korea
I can see one more positive possible outcome. It Ukraine can break through this year and cut the azov lines from Russia to Crimea. That would be a game changer. But these reports from pessimistic Ukrainian journalists tell me that is sadly unlikely. But we can pray
But if Ukraine isn't to surrender, it has to fight on. How do you square that?
What about Ukraine doesn’t win. A hardline President follows Zelensky and Ukraine explodes a nuclear bomb and announces they are now a nuclear power again.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
It’s quite funny, Leon is a writer, a journalist, a player. He comes on with some controversial post about UFOs, crazy dogs, quasi-negativity to Ukraine and everyone spends a few posts telling him nobody cares and then two threads discussing the posts he makes.
Probably doesn’t really remotely care about the point he’s making but loves that everyone then dances to what he posts.
He’s a master of diverting any thread to his whim and everyone follows. He’s laughing. Trouts on a hook. I doff my cap to his puppetry.
Well you can all be diverted by my How-to-use-your-garden-to-torture-people post coupled with Guess The Tree. I've already got one volunteer cook out of it, and Leon has never had tha!
Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.
(1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.
(2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.
(3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.
My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?
They are a pair of yellow belly appeasers, they would both gladly join the invaders to save their skanky skins if UK was taken over.
I do not think this. I do want to understand the rationale for Ukraine surrendering at this point and why this might be better for Ukraine than continuing the killing. Thing is, I'm not hearing the rationale from two commentators on this forum that presumably should be making that rationale, given they imply a surrender to Russia is best for Ukraine.
It was a genuine question.
At least you’re polite and apparently sane. So I’ll answer
I never mentioned surrender! Ever (I don’t think). Or if I did it was hyperbole or a figure of speech
I don’t believe either side can win this. Or only at such tremendous human cost you have to wonder if it is a victory at all. So no one needs to surrender
The basis of any negotiated peace will likely be the same next week as it will be in a year. Russia gets to keep Crimea and maybe the Donbas (subject to referendums?). Ukraine gets to join NATO (asap) and eventually the EU, so they know Putin can never threaten them again
The other items to be resolved as and when
Alternatively both sides will freeze positions on a tacitly agreed line without ever declaring peace. As in Korea
I can see one more positive possible outcome. It Ukraine can break through this year and cut the azov lines from Russia to Crimea. That would be a game changer. But these reports from pessimistic Ukrainian journalists tell me that is sadly unlikely. But we can pray
But if Ukraine isn't to surrender, it has to fight on. How do you square that?
What about Ukraine doesn’t win. A hardline President follows Zelensky and Ukraine explodes a nuclear bomb and announces they are now a nuclear power again.
No elections while Ukraine is at war.
So for your scenario to play out Zelensky would have to be assassinated.
I suppose that's not ridiculously unlikely given that Russia has been making every effort to do so.
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
The biggest miscarriage of justice in English history. That is the Post Office's legacy.
The bastards still don't get it and while I am generally a gentle soul all in favour of the law and behaving well and so forth, the Sicilian side of me quite fancies applying the thumbscrews to these callous numbskulls. And then making them sleep on a bed of nettles and brambles, while smeared in jam. In the heat. Next to a wasp's nest.
Anyway I was out having my Sunday lunch and in true Leon style I offer this up -
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Comments
That might get all their senior management prison sentences.
It says that in one front, where the Ukrainians are defending and not on the offensive so haven't put their best units, that the Ukrainian forces aren't very trained. That's true. Its not news to anyone, Ukraine has many recruits, they conscripted the entire nation pretty much.
Of course the longer the war goes on, the better trained those troops will be, from experience and not just weeks of NATO training. Since Ukraine isn't looking to end this war in a matter of days or weeks, supporting them as best as we can is our responsibility, but you are drawing an opposite conclusion because you have this ridiculous notion of a "quick" end to the war as being desirable.
Why is it?
A quick victory for Ukraine, if it were possible, would of course be preferable. But nobody has suggested that, so you're tilting at windmills.
A quick surrender by Ukraine, or its western allies, is worse than a long and drawn out war that brutally and bloodily enables Ukraine to achieve a lasting victory.
Legacy issues!
Defending is easier than attacking. Much more so. Last year Ukraine was mostly defending and inflicted horrendous casualties on the Russians. Now it is their turn. Moving about on a modern battlefield is seriously dangerous. Drones, artillery, minefields, booby traps, it is getting almost too dangerous for humans not in armour to survive.
It remains entirely possible that Russia will have a breaking point and collapse. I really hope so. I desperately want Ukraine to win this war. It just doesn't look imminent.
Most Londoners have no clue who she is currently.
You do veer here
I was amused by the very small parsnip protruding to the side with a bit of a curl. I thought of calling it Putin.
Edit - and the drink was a lime and soda so it shouldn't be upside down like that.
We all have a particular background in matters ethical. We all have principles and morals. Morals are not a preserve of a minority, it is something every human has.
My principles include that totalitarian dictatorships invading and conquering other people is repugnant.
Unless Ukraine is defeated and wanting to surrender, which it is not, then us supporting Ukraine is absolutely morally and unambiguously the right thing to do.
Appeasing monsters like Putin absolutely is repugnant.
All wars end in a form of negotiation. You literally put down your guns and talk. Some wars end in total surrender by one side, and absolute conquest by the victor - the Allies over the Nazis, in 1945, or VJ day - then the negotiation is easy. Many wars end in truce or Armistice - Korea, WW1, then the negotiation is a lot harder
Ukraine is not going to totally defeat Russia, topple Putin and take Moscow. So then it becomes a truce or Armistice style ending. The choice for them is what is worth giving up - or not giving up - in return for peace
There is their choice, they can fight to the last man with total moral superioriy, but then they will all be dead and I'm not sure if that is the best option
Russian mili bloggers have been quite panicked in the last week or so as well
I am fully in favour as I believe we have 8 billion to many people
A nuclear winter will cancel climate change
I dont believe most of their arsenal works so most of those dying will be arseholes
https://ew.com/article/2008/01/09/obama-jeri-ryan/
I won't ask what experience inspired that...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luEDui2zAUw
But generally, like most of us, I come here for a good informed debate, with people adducing evidence and thrashing out positions. At its best PB is brilliant at this. Sadly, PB loses its rag when it comes to Ukraine, and its like trying to talk to an angry kindergarten
And now I am out for a walk in the lovely evening sun. Later!
Ukraine don't need to take Moscow, they just need to liberate their own land. Something they're already doing. Once their own land is liberated and secure, the war can be over, and they can join NATO and ensure Russia learns its lesson never to ever try this ever again.
Only bigger, obviously.
Strangely, Worf/Dax worked though, as did Torres/Paris (kindof).
It's fine if the producers go for real chemistry of the actors/characters and don't scrape the bottom of the barrel.
(Shout out to Harry Kim who seemed to suffer zero character development in over seven years)
You are entirely right
Interesting profile of Thomas Kerr who is fighting the Rutherglen by-election on behalf of the Scottish Tories. (Ruth Davidson started her political career by resigning from the BBC to fight a hopeless Glasgow by-election).
https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/23762506.i-might-vote-tory-time-campaign-trail-thomas-kerr/
"In 2017, he went where no Tory had ever gone before when he was elected to represent Shettleston in the east end of Glasgow at the local council elections. In doing so, he swept aside two much more highly favoured and experienced SNP candidates.
"Shettleston is that district of Glasgow which only seems to pique the media’s interest every three years when Scotland’s latest multi-deprivation index is revealed.
"Before 2017, the prospect of a Tory getting in there seemed about as credible as Nicola Sturgeon’s little-known predilection for taking holidays in a camper-van."
While some welcomed the ship and its passengers as a boost to the local economy, others were more equivocal. 18% of the homes in Fowey are second homes - as we look at the problems of property and wealth, whatever I may think of the new flats in Barking, East Ham and Ilford, the ability of locals to get on the property ladder in places like Fowey has been a problem for decades and it still is.
You'll have to resolve this next year. Circles can't be squared. It'll be hard for you to get behind the Dems but your pro Ukraine passion means you're going to have to.
Yes was is difficult. All the more reason for us to give every bit of armour and ammunition we can to the Ukrainians.
That's not saying that Ukraine must enter negotiations or decide what to "give up" though as you are claiming.
They made a mistake in thinking Ukraine are weaker than them. Win a victory and they will come back for more, but get defeated and if Ukraine are in NATO they won't make that mistake twice.
What is it about Vladimir Putin that you find particularly attractive?
1. Putin is evil and wrong and the invasion is a moral disgrace
And
2. Unfortunately Putin is doing considerably better in Ukraine than we all hoped/anticipated 3-9 months ago
There are still reasons for positivity. The Prigozhin debacle revealed significant brittleness - and unhappiness in the ranks. Putin is losing allies in the global south as his grain embargo impacts
However my entirely amateur hunch is that Ukraine needs a major breakthrough this autumn before the war freezes into stasis for the winter. I am not convinced they have the men for ANOTHER year of deeply painful “counterattack”
I’ve been quite clear that I think the election will make little difference to what actually happens with regard to Ukraine in the US, although the messaging will change significantly depending on who is the president. The MIC keeps running, as it always has.
If Russia is losing equipment and people faster than Ukraine are, and Ukraine can get replacement equipment from the rest of the world which Russia can't, then why can't they go again next year?
Wars lasting years are not atypical.
Probably doesn’t really remotely care about the point he’s making but loves that everyone then dances to what he posts.
He’s a master of diverting any thread to his whim and everyone follows. He’s laughing. Trouts on a hook. I doff my cap to his puppetry.
It's entirely possible an isolationist America First POTUS cuts off aid to Ukraine while feeding the MIC domestically.
Ukraine is too important, we should all hope the winner of the next Presidential election is someone with Ukraine's interests at heart.
That doesn't have to be a Democrat. There's plenty of good GOP candidates too on this subject such as Haley, Christie etc
But Trump, Ramaswamy etc who are calling for Ukraine to surrender we have to hope they get defeated.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
The problem is the extreme desire to not allow any development and for economic growth.
When I lived in Malmesbury, there was actual anger expressed by an incomer that the locals still had a pub in the middle of the town.
I'm of the cynical view apparently unresolved conflicts actually work to the advantage of many of those involved.
That's war for you - the losers are the ones doing the fighting and the dying. The winners are the ones providing the guns. Arms manufacturers and suppliers are growing rich providing equipment to both sides - no one can breathe a syllable about cutting the defence budget which is now as sacred as the NHS and indeed all the clamour is to spend more yet the public finances are as we know in a shambles with increasing costs on the NHS of an ageing population.
Perversely, the current impasse helps Zelenskyy and Putin as both can appear as war leaders to their electorates and everything they do and say can be framed in that context and both can play the patriotic card.
Did Putin really think Ukraine would collapse in 72 hours? He wouldn't be the first aggressor to get that wrong and I fear he won't be the last.
Even the economic impact has been largely mitigated or controlled - in effect, we've bottled the conflict up much as happened in the Iran-Iraq War. The early threats of tactical nuclear weapons and the like or of Russian attacks on Poland have receded - the "rules" of the game are clear. Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO and as long as Russia does nothing stupid, the conflict can remain brutal and local.
Unprovoked aggression, however, cannot be allowed to stand - it didn't in the Falklands and Kuwait but what does "victory" look like? A post-Putin leader in Moscow and a unilateral withdrawal of all Russian forces beyond the Ukraine border would seem the more likely but will that be how it is? To be blunt, the last thing we need is instability or chaos in a nuclear power - the potential for that not ending well is obvious.
If ever it was the time for grown-up, sensible government then surely it is now? I don't care if Starmer is boring, he's much more likely to be competent than the current lot. And Corbyn, much as his independent spirit & contrarian voice may have been valued on the backbenches in the past, is no longer a member of the Labour party. Voting for him won't help get to a Labour majority government. Why risk it?
It was a genuine question.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
The bastards still don't get it and while I am generally a gentle soul all in favour of the law and behaving well and so forth, the Sicilian side of me quite fancies applying the thumbscrews to these callous numbskulls. And then making them sleep on a bed of nettles and brambles, while smeared in jam. In the heat. Next to a wasp's nest.
Anyway I was out having my Sunday lunch and in true Leon style I offer this up -
And for all you PB brains where might this be?
Guessing it's a wood of some sort?
I never mentioned surrender! Ever (I don’t think). Or if I did it was hyperbole or a figure of speech
I don’t believe either side can win this. Or only at such tremendous human cost you have to wonder if it is a victory at all. So no one needs to surrender
The basis of any negotiated peace will likely be the same next week as it will be in a year. Russia gets to keep Crimea and maybe the Donbas (subject to referendums?). Ukraine gets to join NATO (asap) and eventually the EU, so they know Putin can never threaten them again
The other items to be resolved as and when
Alternatively both sides will freeze positions on a tacitly agreed line without ever declaring peace. As in Korea
I can see one more positive possible outcome. If Ukraine can break through this year and cut the azov lines from Russia to Crimea. That would be a game changer. But these reports from pessimistic Ukrainian journalists tell me that is sadly unlikely. But we can pray
Do try and keep up
I have no desire at all to pay more in tax than I presently do.
maybe I could have southam and marquee mark over to make for a lively discussion as both live near
It is the place to be on a hot day. 27 degrees here on the beach this afternoon.
At present, though, the Ukrainians believe they can take Crimea (or at least remove the Russian ability to defend it).
And the Russians believe they can hold out until Trump changes the political calculation.
So the war grinds on.
And while it does, it is very much in the West’s interests for Ukraine not to “lose”.
So I would say "not like Manchester".
That was the UK system until ~10 years ago, wasn't it? When you could get a Tier 1 "High Value Migrant - General" visa by having a postgraduate degree and earning 50% more than the median salary (I think it was roughly £37k when a friend went through it around 2008, would probably be more like 45k now).
But that was shut down for everyone apart from those with £2m to invest or those who had "internationally-recognised exceptional talent" (ie. you were famous or had friends in high places).
All other UK visas are tied to a specific employment contract (so are equivalent to the American H-1B) or a specific course of study.
That Tier 1 HVM General visa seems to me to be a no-brainer to bring back. We're talking about skilled workers with high earning potential / no recourse to public funds / pay to use the NHS / pathway to citizenship if you stay & meet the earnings requirements for five years continuously. There's no downside for the UK there, is there?
So for your scenario to play out Zelensky would have to be assassinated.
I suppose that's not ridiculously unlikely given that Russia has been making every effort to do so.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.