Mum left 'pouring with blood' after sacrificing her arms to protect daughter from 'aggressive' bully XL dog
The government has proposed no laws to decriminalise those responsible for a dog who allow it to attack people. Stray dogs are the legal responsibility of local authorities.
What further action can a government take? Personally it wouldn't worry me if dog ownership was as infrequent as giraffe ownership, but about 10 million voters think otherwise.
Bully XL breed dogs are enormously more likely to attack both other dogs & humans than any other breed in the UK.
According to https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/finding-kimbo/ pretty much all the UK dogs are descended from a single US specimen, every immediate descendant of which was put down by the US authorities for attacking someone out of the blue. Not only that, the UK Bully XL population is usually descended from this paragon of virtue multiple times due to rampant inbreeding within the sector. UK breeders advertise having that dog in their pedigree.
In this particular case, it genuinely seems that it’s not the owner (although a certain type of owner does tend to own these dogs) it’s the breed, or rather that all of them are inbred descendents of a psychotic killer that was prone to snapping out of the blue. Even this wouldn’t be the end of the world if we were talking about an ordinary 15kg housepet, but these things are potentially 50kg of solid muscle. No one is stopping them if they decide to go for someone.
The dangerous dogs act may be bad legislation, but this is exactly the kind of situation that it would actually work for as written. If the information above is true then, imo, the secretary of state has a duty to ban Bully XL breed animals.
This is absolutely right. These dogs have been bred specifically as killers - nothing else. Bred - and inbred - for intense muscularity, aggression, tenacity, and brutal and savage persistence, plus a random streak of homicidal mania
The ONLY justification for keeping them is for military/security purposes. Even then it’s questionable anyone can handle them
They are like a Siberian tiger bred with Jack the Ripper. What the fuck is the government waiting for, one of these dogs to get in a school playground?
If two of them can kill 22 sheep in a session they can easily kill a dozen kids playing “in an annoying way”
Injured 48 more, for a total of 70. Only stopped when the farmer shot them.
Anyway, cats should be banned. Why is it right to let an animal you "own" and are responsible for out in the wild to do whatever it wants, kill wildlife and shit in my gravel drive? If you let a comparable sized dog out on its own, neighbourhood watch would go barmy.
Not to mention firefighter time wasted rescuing the little terrors from trees
(Does that still happen? Did it ever, outside of Fireman Sam and kids' books?)
I helped a few cats down. And a parrot. And more than a couple of kids who were fine until they looked down. The local RSPCA had a sort of rule that said a cat wasn't stuck up a tree until it had been up there 24 hours...saved us no end of grief.
Rottweilers are ultimately herding dogs. Whilst fairly large, a decently brought up Rottweiler isn’t a danger to others. Bully breeds are fighting dogs & have been bred to be aggressive & never to back down. The Bully XL takes these traits, puts them together with 50kg of pure muscle and throws in a tendency to snap out of the blue without any warning for good measure.
Irredeemable appears to be roughly correct.
Although in your reply also spelt correctly, unlike my original posting
Only thanks to the Firefox spellchecker calling me out!
Mum left 'pouring with blood' after sacrificing her arms to protect daughter from 'aggressive' bully XL dog
The government has proposed no laws to decriminalise those responsible for a dog who allow it to attack people. Stray dogs are the legal responsibility of local authorities.
What further action can a government take? Personally it wouldn't worry me if dog ownership was as infrequent as giraffe ownership, but about 10 million voters think otherwise.
Bully XL breed dogs are enormously more likely to attack both other dogs & humans than any other breed in the UK.
According to https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/finding-kimbo/ pretty much all the UK dogs are descended from a single US specimen, every immediate descendant of which was put down by the US authorities for attacking someone out of the blue. Not only that, the UK Bully XL population is usually descended from this paragon of virtue multiple times due to rampant inbreeding within the sector. UK breeders advertise having that dog in their pedigree.
In this particular case, it genuinely seems that it’s not the owner (although a certain type of owner does tend to own these dogs) it’s the breed, or rather that all of them are inbred descendents of a psychotic killer that was prone to snapping out of the blue. Even this wouldn’t be the end of the world if we were talking about an ordinary 15kg housepet, but these things are potentially 50kg of solid muscle. No one is stopping them if they decide to go for someone.
The dangerous dogs act may be bad legislation, but this is exactly the kind of situation that it would actually work for as written. If the information above is true then, imo, the secretary of state has a duty to ban Bully XL breed animals.
This is absolutely right. These dogs have been bred specifically as killers - nothing else. Bred - and inbred - for intense muscularity, aggression, tenacity, and brutal and savage persistence, plus a random streak of homicidal mania
The ONLY justification for keeping them is for military/security purposes. Even then it’s questionable anyone can handle them
They are like a Siberian tiger bred with Jack the Ripper. What the fuck is the government waiting for, one of these dogs to get in a school playground?
If two of them can kill 22 sheep in a session they can easily kill a dozen kids playing “in an annoying way”
Injured 48 more, for a total of 70. Only stopped when the farmer shot them.
The owner was fined £900.
Apparently it’s the RSPCA which is “preventing” the govt from banning these dogs
Fucksake. Grow a backbone. Ban them. Tell the RSPCA to go jump in a lake, full of “friendly” sharks
Mum left 'pouring with blood' after sacrificing her arms to protect daughter from 'aggressive' bully XL dog
The government has proposed no laws to decriminalise those responsible for a dog who allow it to attack people. Stray dogs are the legal responsibility of local authorities.
What further action can a government take? Personally it wouldn't worry me if dog ownership was as infrequent as giraffe ownership, but about 10 million voters think otherwise.
Bully XL breed dogs are enormously more likely to attack both other dogs & humans than any other breed in the UK.
According to https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/finding-kimbo/ pretty much all the UK dogs are descended from a single US specimen, every immediate descendant of which was put down by the US authorities for attacking someone out of the blue. Not only that, the UK Bully XL population is usually descended from this paragon of virtue multiple times due to rampant inbreeding within the sector. UK breeders advertise having that dog in their pedigree.
In this particular case, it genuinely seems that it’s not the owner (although a certain type of owner does tend to own these dogs) it’s the breed, or rather that all of them are inbred descendents of a psychotic killer that was prone to snapping out of the blue. Even this wouldn’t be the end of the world if we were talking about an ordinary 15kg housepet, but these things are potentially 50kg of solid muscle. No one is stopping them if they decide to go for someone.
The dangerous dogs act may be bad legislation, but this is exactly the kind of situation that it would actually work for as written. If the information above is true then, imo, the secretary of state has a duty to ban Bully XL breed animals.
Thanks. One or two thoughts about this horrible case, where of course all my thoughts are with the young mother victim.
If the DDA is a bad act, then it is unlikely to be good in this case.
Secondly, there is a lot of class aspect in this animal thingy. The group of people who own and like these creatures are, I am sure, psychotic layabouts who don't live in the more agreeable parts of north Oxford.
Those however who support the reintroduction of the wolf into the UK, an act which from time to time will have the same outcome, are not psychotic layabouts, and can probably be found in abundance in north Oxford.
The difference between a wolf and an XL bully is the dog just keeps on killing.
(I'm broadly in favour of reintroducing wolves, even though, in the long term, it will reduce the availability of the glorious Venison Burger)
Wolves have been reintroduced in a number of countries. Wolf attacks on humans are practically non existent in these countries.
It has been suggested that human hunting has deleted all the wolves predisposed to do anything other than given humans a wide berth.
The descendants of wolves who did not give humans a wide berth look like this:
Those belong to Putin. One is called Corbyn and the other Trump
Corbyn has been a bigger critic of Putin than any of the current or past crop of leaders.
This Corbyn? He's one of Vlad's useful idiots.
Jeremy Corbyn has urged western countries to stop arming Ukraine, and claimed he was criticised over antisemitism because of his stance on Palestine, in a TV interview likely to underscore Keir Starmer’s determination not to readmit him to the Labour party.
I am personally convinced that what ultimately did for Corbyn was that in the eyes of many British people he /wasn’t on their side/. A view that must surely be career ending for anyone who aspires to be PM.
Mum left 'pouring with blood' after sacrificing her arms to protect daughter from 'aggressive' bully XL dog
The government has proposed no laws to decriminalise those responsible for a dog who allow it to attack people. Stray dogs are the legal responsibility of local authorities.
What further action can a government take? Personally it wouldn't worry me if dog ownership was as infrequent as giraffe ownership, but about 10 million voters think otherwise.
Ban all dog ownership.
Cats are the best.
There aren't any bad pet dogs, only bad owners...obviously, though, some dog breeds should never be pets. Treat bad owners the same as I propose illegal escooter/ebike riders should be treated. Execution. The only way to be sure.
A friend of mine up bred Rotties.Over a period of 20 years he must have bred and sold probably 2 dozen of the beasts. And they were BIG. And yet they were raised with kindness and treated and trained extremely well and not one of them ever caused a problem. And yet, as a breed they have a bad name because they are such big and powerful dogs and are therefore put to nefarious uses.
That said - from everything I have read so far the Bully XLs sound like they are probably irredeamable.
Rotties are not a 'beginner's breed' by any means, but they absolutely can be lovely dogs. There's a big difference between being bred to be protective, and being bred to be incredibly aggressive. So I do get the 'owner not the breed' argument more generally.
Mum left 'pouring with blood' after sacrificing her arms to protect daughter from 'aggressive' bully XL dog
The government has proposed no laws to decriminalise those responsible for a dog who allow it to attack people. Stray dogs are the legal responsibility of local authorities.
What further action can a government take? Personally it wouldn't worry me if dog ownership was as infrequent as giraffe ownership, but about 10 million voters think otherwise.
Ban all dog ownership.
Cats are the best.
There aren't any bad pet dogs, only bad owners...obviously, though, some dog breeds should never be pets. Treat bad owners the same as I propose illegal escooter/ebike riders should be treated. Execution. The only way to be sure.
A friend of mine up bred Rotties.Over a period of 20 years he must have bred and sold probably 2 dozen of the beasts. And they were BIG. And yet they were raised with kindness and treated and trained extremely well and not one of them ever caused a problem. And yet, as a breed they have a bad name because they are such big and powerful dogs and are therefore put to nefarious uses.
That said - from everything I have read so far the Bully XLs sound like they are probably irredeamable.
Rotties are not a 'beginner's breed' by any means, but they absolutely can be lovely dogs. There's a big difference between being bred to be protective, and being bred to be incredibly aggressive. So I do get the 'owner not the breed' argument more generally.
Yes, you can make that case for most dogs. But not for those bred as fighting dogs.
Anyway, cats should be banned. Why is it right to let an animal you "own" and are responsible for out in the wild to do whatever it wants, kill wildlife and shit in my gravel drive? If you let a comparable sized dog out on its own, neighbourhood watch would go barmy.
Not to mention firefighter time wasted rescuing the little terrors from trees
(Does that still happen? Did it ever, outside of Fireman Sam and kids' books?)
Happened in Newark last year. Made the local paper so presumably fairly rare.
We're looking at houses in Newark. The town seems great, a nice cafe culture, loads of shops (including Waitrose- a deal breaker for the wife). Affordable. A lot of history, the castle, the park. Great transport links so we can travel up and down the country. Of all the towns we've visited, it's looking like the surprising winner!
Mum left 'pouring with blood' after sacrificing her arms to protect daughter from 'aggressive' bully XL dog
The government has proposed no laws to decriminalise those responsible for a dog who allow it to attack people. Stray dogs are the legal responsibility of local authorities.
What further action can a government take? Personally it wouldn't worry me if dog ownership was as infrequent as giraffe ownership, but about 10 million voters think otherwise.
Bully XL breed dogs are enormously more likely to attack both other dogs & humans than any other breed in the UK.
According to https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/finding-kimbo/ pretty much all the UK dogs are descended from a single US specimen, every immediate descendant of which was put down by the US authorities for attacking someone out of the blue. Not only that, the UK Bully XL population is usually descended from this paragon of virtue multiple times due to rampant inbreeding within the sector. UK breeders advertise having that dog in their pedigree.
In this particular case, it genuinely seems that it’s not the owner (although a certain type of owner does tend to own these dogs) it’s the breed, or rather that all of them are inbred descendents of a psychotic killer that was prone to snapping out of the blue. Even this wouldn’t be the end of the world if we were talking about an ordinary 15kg housepet, but these things are potentially 50kg of solid muscle. No one is stopping them if they decide to go for someone.
The dangerous dogs act may be bad legislation, but this is exactly the kind of situation that it would actually work for as written. If the information above is true then, imo, the secretary of state has a duty to ban Bully XL breed animals.
Thanks. One or two thoughts about this horrible case, where of course all my thoughts are with the young mother victim.
If the DDA is a bad act, then it is unlikely to be good in this case.
Secondly, there is a lot of class aspect in this animal thingy. The group of people who own and like these creatures are, I am sure, psychotic layabouts who don't live in the more agreeable parts of north Oxford.
Those however who support the reintroduction of the wolf into the UK, an act which from time to time will have the same outcome, are not psychotic layabouts, and can probably be found in abundance in north Oxford.
The difference between a wolf and an XL bully is the dog just keeps on killing.
(I'm broadly in favour of reintroducing wolves, even though, in the long term, it will reduce the availability of the glorious Venison Burger)
Wolves have been reintroduced in a number of countries. Wolf attacks on humans are practically non existent in these countries.
It has been suggested that human hunting has deleted all the wolves predisposed to do anything other than given humans a wide berth.
The descendants of wolves who did not give humans a wide berth look like this:
Those belong to Putin. One is called Corbyn and the other Trump
Corbyn has been a bigger critic of Putin than any of the current or past crop of leaders.
This Corbyn? He's one of Vlad's useful idiots.
Jeremy Corbyn has urged western countries to stop arming Ukraine, and claimed he was criticised over antisemitism because of his stance on Palestine, in a TV interview likely to underscore Keir Starmer’s determination not to readmit him to the Labour party.
Mum left 'pouring with blood' after sacrificing her arms to protect daughter from 'aggressive' bully XL dog
The government has proposed no laws to decriminalise those responsible for a dog who allow it to attack people. Stray dogs are the legal responsibility of local authorities.
What further action can a government take? Personally it wouldn't worry me if dog ownership was as infrequent as giraffe ownership, but about 10 million voters think otherwise.
Bully XL breed dogs are enormously more likely to attack both other dogs & humans than any other breed in the UK.
According to https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/finding-kimbo/ pretty much all the UK dogs are descended from a single US specimen, every immediate descendant of which was put down by the US authorities for attacking someone out of the blue. Not only that, the UK Bully XL population is usually descended from this paragon of virtue multiple times due to rampant inbreeding within the sector. UK breeders advertise having that dog in their pedigree.
In this particular case, it genuinely seems that it’s not the owner (although a certain type of owner does tend to own these dogs) it’s the breed, or rather that all of them are inbred descendents of a psychotic killer that was prone to snapping out of the blue. Even this wouldn’t be the end of the world if we were talking about an ordinary 15kg housepet, but these things are potentially 50kg of solid muscle. No one is stopping them if they decide to go for someone.
The dangerous dogs act may be bad legislation, but this is exactly the kind of situation that it would actually work for as written. If the information above is true then, imo, the secretary of state has a duty to ban Bully XL breed animals.
Thanks. One or two thoughts about this horrible case, where of course all my thoughts are with the young mother victim.
If the DDA is a bad act, then it is unlikely to be good in this case.
Secondly, there is a lot of class aspect in this animal thingy. The group of people who own and like these creatures are, I am sure, psychotic layabouts who don't live in the more agreeable parts of north Oxford.
Those however who support the reintroduction of the wolf into the UK, an act which from time to time will have the same outcome, are not psychotic layabouts, and can probably be found in abundance in north Oxford.
The difference between a wolf and an XL bully is the dog just keeps on killing.
(I'm broadly in favour of reintroducing wolves, even though, in the long term, it will reduce the availability of the glorious Venison Burger)
Wolves have been reintroduced in a number of countries. Wolf attacks on humans are practically non existent in these countries.
It has been suggested that human hunting has deleted all the wolves predisposed to do anything other than given humans a wide berth.
The descendants of wolves who did not give humans a wide berth look like this:
Those belong to Putin. One is called Corbyn and the other Trump
Corbyn has been a bigger critic of Putin than any of the current or past crop of leaders.
This Corbyn? He's one of Vlad's useful idiots.
Jeremy Corbyn has urged western countries to stop arming Ukraine, and claimed he was criticised over antisemitism because of his stance on Palestine, in a TV interview likely to underscore Keir Starmer’s determination not to readmit him to the Labour party.
I am personally convinced that what ultimately did for Corbyn was that in the eyes of many British people he /wasn’t on their side/. A view that must surely be career ending for anyone who aspires to be PM.
His ratings cratered after his response to the Salisbury poisonings.
Oh good, they’ve finally seen sense on this one. The next five years are obviously going to be spent steadily unpicking the Brexit deal Johnson dragged us into. So many pointless self-inflicted disasters.
Do free movement for musicians on tour next. That’s another completely ridiculous self-inflicted injury.
I am pro the banning of these dogs and anti the bringing back of wolves. That seems consistent.
I was slightly anti the bringing back of wolves until something I said on here prompted someone to ask whether I was a wolf-introducer, and I couldn't resist the label.
I can claim some experience with wolves here having helped someone herd a pack of them at reading wolf sanctuary. True they were only semi wild and somewhat used to humans in their vicinity but they were in an open paddock and out numbered the two humans 3 to 1. It wasn't as scary as a lot of these dogs
Anyway, cats should be banned. Why is it right to let an animal you "own" and are responsible for out in the wild to do whatever it wants, kill wildlife and shit in my gravel drive? If you let a comparable sized dog out on its own, neighbourhood watch would go barmy.
I much prefer cats to dogs.
We have two cats, but one of the best things about visiting my dad is spending time with his daft soppy dog Max - border collie/lab cross. Sadly now visibly on his last legs (both dog and dad tbf) but my kids especially love him, especially my 6yo daughter whose over-affectionate mauling is much more appreciated by Max than our cats.
Like the Stones and the Beatles, you can like both! (Beatles are obviously better, but still.)
Good to be home early to "enjoy" this heat which we are all supposed to be doing (apparently).
There is a group or demographic (well represented on PB I think) for whom 1992 was a traumatic experience both in terms of which side won but the realisation the previously-infallible polls might be wrong (in fairness, 1987 hadn't been their finest hour either). Some might have suffered a financial trauma in the relatively unsophisticated betting and trading environments of the time.
Could it happen again? Inasmuch as anything can happen, yes, and I'm convinced Starmer and Labour take nothing for granted and the way the party is being positioned mirrors 1997.
ULEZ, for example, was a desperate attempt to create, to use the phrase, "clear blue water" between the two parties and succeeded but the result in Uxbridge itself mirroed what didn't happen in Hillingdon in the previous year's local elections.
The current picture is of a Conservative vote of surprising resilience in some places but surprising weakness in others. Back to 1997 and the national UNS was 10% but that disguised a smaller swing in the north and a bigger swing in London and in some places swings approaching 20%.
At the moment, I could well envisage some Conservatives surivivng on relatively small swings (5%) and others falling to much bigger swings (20%+). The problem I have with a Labour majority is 12.7 million voted Conservative in England in December 2019 and some of the majorities in English seats are very large even with swings of 13-15%.
We're relying on a combination of factors of which I think four are relevant - direct switchers to Labour, direct switchers to Reform, abstentions and tactical voting. The weight of these factors will vary from seat to seat but all will play their part somewhere.
Currently we can reckon on 4-4.5 million of that vote being no longer committed to the Conservatives, about 2-2.5 million have moved to Labour, we know another million or so may not vote currently, perhaps half a million to Reform and some tv movement from LD to Labour and vice versa.
Anyway, cats should be banned. Why is it right to let an animal you "own" and are responsible for out in the wild to do whatever it wants, kill wildlife and shit in my gravel drive? If you let a comparable sized dog out on its own, neighbourhood watch would go barmy.
Not to mention firefighter time wasted rescuing the little terrors from trees
(Does that still happen? Did it ever, outside of Fireman Sam and kids' books?)
Happened in Newark last year. Made the local paper so presumably fairly rare.
We're looking at houses in Newark. The town seems great, a nice cafe culture, loads of shops (including Waitrose- a deal breaker for the wife). Affordable. A lot of history, the castle, the park. Great transport links so we can travel up and down the country. Of all the towns we've visited, it's looking like the surprising winner!
Oh good, they’ve finally seen sense on this one. The next five years are obviously going to be spent steadily unpicking the Brexit deal Johnson dragged us into. So many pointless self-inflicted disasters.
Do free movement for musicians on tour next. That’s another completely ridiculous self-inflicted injury.
Sunak agreeing the WF opened the door to a better relationship and he does get on well with UVDL
As you say let's hope this rapprochement continues and develops for all our mutual benefits
An undercover police officer used his fake identity to deceive a woman into a 19-year relationship in which they became partners and had a child together, the Guardian can reveal.
The officer concealed his real identity from the woman for the duration of that period, never telling her his real occupation, and using his fictitious identity on the birth certificate of their son.
In 2020, after the couple were engaged to be married, the woman discovered that her fiance, whom she believed to be a businessman, was in fact a police officer who had subjected her to a sophisticated deception lasting almost two decades.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating senior officers at Avon and Somerset police, who knew about the undercover officer’s relationship with the woman as far back as 2013.
They appear to have waited at least seven years before informing the woman that the person she knew as her fiance had been using a fake identity given to him for use in covert police operations. In a statement, the IOPC confirmed it was investigating the case.
The woman, whom the Guardian is referring to as “Mary” to protect her identity, does not want to speak publicly about the experience. However, her relatives say that she is “a shadow of the person we used to know”.
“This whole thing has broken her,” Mary’s sister said. “She has expressed suicidal thoughts. She cries daily. She does not sleep. She is really fearful.”
News of the deception has upended the entire family’s lives. “Our dad, the stress of this has destroyed his health. This has put him in hospital. My mum is on antidepressants, she can’t sleep at night. We can’t talk about this to anybody, not even with our own children,” Mary’s sister added. “It’s broken us as a family.”
Mary’s family accuse Avon and Somerset police of bullying and threatening them over the last three years in an effort to discourage them from speaking to the press.
Senior police, they say, warned them that if the public were to become aware of the 19-year relationship the revelation could spark riots. However, Mary’s family now believe this and other warnings were used to co-opt them into a “cover-up” of the scandal.
Anyway, cats should be banned. Why is it right to let an animal you "own" and are responsible for out in the wild to do whatever it wants, kill wildlife and shit in my gravel drive? If you let a comparable sized dog out on its own, neighbourhood watch would go barmy.
Not to mention firefighter time wasted rescuing the little terrors from trees
(Does that still happen? Did it ever, outside of Fireman Sam and kids' books?)
Happened in Newark last year. Made the local paper so presumably fairly rare.
We're looking at houses in Newark. The town seems great, a nice cafe culture, loads of shops (including Waitrose- a deal breaker for the wife). Affordable. A lot of history, the castle, the park. Great transport links so we can travel up and down the country. Of all the towns we've visited, it's looking like the surprising winner!
Mum left 'pouring with blood' after sacrificing her arms to protect daughter from 'aggressive' bully XL dog
Drives me insane. They will clearly have to act eventually. The sooner they do it the more lives and limbs will be saved. Children are going to be killed
Australia successfully bans these dogs: it can be done in the UK tomorrow. I hate this craven government
Ban them now.
…..
Great to see you back. We can now return to disagreeing with each other at every available opportunity. Apart from in this case, that is.
An undercover police officer used his fake identity to deceive a woman into a 19-year relationship in which they became partners and had a child together, the Guardian can reveal.
The officer concealed his real identity from the woman for the duration of that period, never telling her his real occupation, and using his fictitious identity on the birth certificate of their son.
In 2020, after the couple were engaged to be married, the woman discovered that her fiance, whom she believed to be a businessman, was in fact a police officer who had subjected her to a sophisticated deception lasting almost two decades.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating senior officers at Avon and Somerset police, who knew about the undercover officer’s relationship with the woman as far back as 2013.
They appear to have waited at least seven years before informing the woman that the person she knew as her fiance had been using a fake identity given to him for use in covert police operations. In a statement, the IOPC confirmed it was investigating the case.
The woman, whom the Guardian is referring to as “Mary” to protect her identity, does not want to speak publicly about the experience. However, her relatives say that she is “a shadow of the person we used to know”.
“This whole thing has broken her,” Mary’s sister said. “She has expressed suicidal thoughts. She cries daily. She does not sleep. She is really fearful.”
News of the deception has upended the entire family’s lives. “Our dad, the stress of this has destroyed his health. This has put him in hospital. My mum is on antidepressants, she can’t sleep at night. We can’t talk about this to anybody, not even with our own children,” Mary’s sister added. “It’s broken us as a family.”
Mary’s family accuse Avon and Somerset police of bullying and threatening them over the last three years in an effort to discourage them from speaking to the press.
Senior police, they say, warned them that if the public were to become aware of the 19-year relationship the revelation could spark riots. However, Mary’s family now believe this and other warnings were used to co-opt them into a “cover-up” of the scandal.
It's a bit bonkers. Who exactly did she fall in love with? If she fell in love with Bob but he was actually Steve so what? Or was he engaged the whole while on an op involving her?
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
An undercover police officer used his fake identity to deceive a woman into a 19-year relationship in which they became partners and had a child together, the Guardian can reveal.
The officer concealed his real identity from the woman for the duration of that period, never telling her his real occupation, and using his fictitious identity on the birth certificate of their son.
In 2020, after the couple were engaged to be married, the woman discovered that her fiance, whom she believed to be a businessman, was in fact a police officer who had subjected her to a sophisticated deception lasting almost two decades.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating senior officers at Avon and Somerset police, who knew about the undercover officer’s relationship with the woman as far back as 2013.
They appear to have waited at least seven years before informing the woman that the person she knew as her fiance had been using a fake identity given to him for use in covert police operations. In a statement, the IOPC confirmed it was investigating the case.
The woman, whom the Guardian is referring to as “Mary” to protect her identity, does not want to speak publicly about the experience. However, her relatives say that she is “a shadow of the person we used to know”.
“This whole thing has broken her,” Mary’s sister said. “She has expressed suicidal thoughts. She cries daily. She does not sleep. She is really fearful.”
News of the deception has upended the entire family’s lives. “Our dad, the stress of this has destroyed his health. This has put him in hospital. My mum is on antidepressants, she can’t sleep at night. We can’t talk about this to anybody, not even with our own children,” Mary’s sister added. “It’s broken us as a family.”
Mary’s family accuse Avon and Somerset police of bullying and threatening them over the last three years in an effort to discourage them from speaking to the press.
Senior police, they say, warned them that if the public were to become aware of the 19-year relationship the revelation could spark riots. However, Mary’s family now believe this and other warnings were used to co-opt them into a “cover-up” of the scandal.
This is amazing stuff, and they keep coming up, including all the leftish ones who were taken in for years by undercover cops. To most of the rest of us, even making allowances for the fact that all men are liars (says so in the Psalms so must be true), and all women are capable of self deception and even bright ones can be remarkably dim, this seems impossible for both parties.
Amor caecus est; and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
I am pro the banning of these dogs and anti the bringing back of wolves. That seems consistent.
I was slightly anti the bringing back of wolves until something I said on here prompted someone to ask whether I was a wolf-introducer, and I couldn't resist the label.
I can claim some experience with wolves here having helped someone herd a pack of them at reading wolf sanctuary. True they were only semi wild and somewhat used to humans in their vicinity but they were in an open paddock and out numbered the two humans 3 to 1. It wasn't as scary as a lot of these dogs
Yes, I have a photo of a wolf in a Hungarian sanctuary looking at me more adoringly than any human ever has...
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
The Ukraine conflict has shown "nukes" is all Russia has - the idea of Russian armoured divisions sweeping across Poland and Germany to the Rhine brushing NATO resistance aside has been shown to be false in extremis.
Russia knows to engage NATO in a military conflict places it in the position NATO believed it was in the 1970s and 1980s - we'd have 72 hours before defeat was inevitable and it was a choice of capitulation or immolation. Putin knows the swift and certain defeat of his forces would leave him with the option of launch or lunch with the NATO officers to take Russia's surrender.
There's an argument however I put forward last spring which goes something like this - Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un, Biden, Sunak all have one thing in common. They all seem to like the finer things of life - good food, drink, nice clothes, holidays - all of that disappears for ever in the event of a nuclear war.
Even if you survive the nuclear fire, the post war life will be horrible, austere and bitter beyond words. That awaits us if those with access to nuclear weapons decide to use them which is why I believe and hope they never will - they have no doubt all been given access to studies which show the nature of the post-nuclear war world which presumably even makes Threads or the The Day After look over-optimistic. Who would want a world like that and what circumstances make getting to that world even remotely justifiable?
Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ latest monthly Scottish independence referendum voting intention poll finds ‘no’ leading by 5%.
Altogether—with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses—49% (+1) of Scottish respondents say they would vote ‘no’ and 44% (-1) say they would vote ‘yes’ if there were to be a referendum tomorrow on whether Scotland should be an independent country. 6% (-1) don’t know how they would vote.
....
he next major electoral test for the Scottish parties is the next United Kingdom General Election, which must be held before January 2025.
When voters are asked who they would vote for if a UK General Election were held tomorrow, the Scottish National Party and Labour are tied on 35% each, the first time in our monthly tracker that the SNP has not held the lead in our Westminster voting intention Poll, and is only the second Westminster Voting Intention Poll publicly released by any company since June 2014 in which the SNP has not led in Scotland.
Altogether the results of our Westminster Voting Intention poll (with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses) are as follows:
Scottish National Party 35% (-2) Labour 35% (+1) Conservative 15% (-2) Liberal Democrat 8% (+1) Green 4% (+2) Reform 2% (–) Other 1% (–)
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
I am pro the banning of these dogs and anti the bringing back of wolves. That seems consistent.
I was slightly anti the bringing back of wolves until something I said on here prompted someone to ask whether I was a wolf-introducer, and I couldn't resist the label.
I can claim some experience with wolves here having helped someone herd a pack of them at reading wolf sanctuary. True they were only semi wild and somewhat used to humans in their vicinity but they were in an open paddock and out numbered the two humans 3 to 1. It wasn't as scary as a lot of these dogs
Yes, I have a photo of a wolf in a Hungarian sanctuary looking at me more adoringly than any human ever has...
Perhaps he had a recipe for nick palmer he wanted to try out. In my case we were on foot and no fences between us...my own fault however wasnt a situation I expected
Having read this long article on the air traffic control problem, I still don't understand why it was necessary for the entire system to have been shut down.
Sounds like a payroll software I was aware of 20 years ago that couldn’t cope with having someone having the same name as somebody else on the pay run.
It sounds like an error path was hit that hadn’t been accounted for, so when the code threw an exception it halted altogether. As it should do in that case of course.
The actual fault was that the code as written could not find an exit point for a flightpath that was supposed to transit UK airspace. The software issue is that this error path wasn’t handled in the code & hence the entire system was brought down instead of that specific flight path being kicked out for manual processing.
There’s then a secondary issue in that it seems clear from the report that 1st & 2nd line support were too busy rigidly following their system failure procedures to actually do any root cause analysis & by the time those had failed to work & the top line support had been brought in from the company that wrote the code in the first place it was too late to get everything sorted out before the 4 hour time horizon was broken.
That in turn seems to be because the actual error was buried inside system logs that 1st & 2nd line support didn’t know how to access. Presumably there was an error log with the dump of the exception & stack at point of failure, which would have pointed to the root cause fairly quickly, but unless you know to look you’re going to be thrashing around in the dark.
This bit is key.
The ADEXP waypoints plan included two waypoints along its route that were geographically distinct but which have the same designator.
Although there has been work by ICAO and other bodies to eradicate non-unique waypoint names there are duplicates around the world. In order to avoid confusion latest standards state that such identical designators should be geographically widely spaced. In this specific event, both of the waypoints were located outside of the UK, one towards the beginning of the route and one towards the end; approximately 4000 nautical miles apart.
I'm genuinely amazed that such a thing is allowed. If you are processing a graph and there are duplicate IDs/names that is just asking for trouble. It seems to have been assumed that if they are far enough apart it won't cause a problem in practice, well clearly that's not correct.
Here's the fix.
9. The feasibility of working through the UK state with ICAO to remove the small number of duplicate waypoint names in the ICAO administered global dataset that relate to this incident.
Yeah, get cracking on that, it's ridiculous that they aren't unique.
They are 5 character (all caps) names.
Collisions are pretty likely: head to https://opennav.com/search & search for PINTO. You’ll get three responses.
Eliminating them requires two (or three) different ATC systems in countries that don’t necessarily get along to agree to the change. Repeat until you’ve eliminated all the duplicates in the system.
Eliminating duplicate names is a project for the long term. Doing something more intelligent than crashing the whole system when a duplicates appear in the same flight plan should have been implemented already. How about rejecting that plan and escalating it for human review? (We might also wonder why the submitting airline did not raise its own electronic eyebrow.)
My *guess* is that the other systems *should* catch this and disallow it from being submitted - otherwise we may have seen many more such cases. But at the end of the day, there has to be something low-down in the system, after user input has been entered from whatever source(s), that will detect such conflicts and throw a metaphorical exception.
This will almost certainly have been yet another swiss-cheese failure: many processes, perhaps run by different organisations, allowed the data to get through to being input into the traffic control system. Those processes need fixing - and as people say, having unique location IDs would be a great start. But even then you'd want the bottom level of the software to detect fallacious or corrupt data from being sent to the controllers.
The question is what should happen when that system gets such a corrupt case? It cannot allow it to go through, and the system is very time-critical; you may not be able to wait a few hours for someone outside the organisation to fix the error.
That can be a devil of a problem.
You'll like this: I have two different guys who share a name in my iPhone directory. I keeps asking me if I'd like to remove the duplicate, even though I have separated them by job role!
Having read this long article on the air traffic control problem, I still don't understand why it was necessary for the entire system to have been shut down.
Sounds like a payroll software I was aware of 20 years ago that couldn’t cope with having someone having the same name as somebody else on the pay run.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is the US refusing to provide ATACMS, long range missiles that the UK has already sent, likely to lead to nuclear war. It has taken 18 months to provide Ukraine with modern fighter jets. Surprise, surprise, there was no nuclear escalation from Putin. As for not using air defence to shoot down Russian missiles near the Nato border, that's just silly.
It sounds like an error path was hit that hadn’t been accounted for, so when the code threw an exception it halted altogether. As it should do in that case of course.
The actual fault was that the code as written could not find an exit point for a flightpath that was supposed to transit UK airspace. The software issue is that this error path wasn’t handled in the code & hence the entire system was brought down instead of that specific flight path being kicked out for manual processing.
There’s then a secondary issue in that it seems clear from the report that 1st & 2nd line support were too busy rigidly following their system failure procedures to actually do any root cause analysis & by the time those had failed to work & the top line support had been brought in from the company that wrote the code in the first place it was too late to get everything sorted out before the 4 hour time horizon was broken.
That in turn seems to be because the actual error was buried inside system logs that 1st & 2nd line support didn’t know how to access. Presumably there was an error log with the dump of the exception & stack at point of failure, which would have pointed to the root cause fairly quickly, but unless you know to look you’re going to be thrashing around in the dark.
This bit is key.
The ADEXP waypoints plan included two waypoints along its route that were geographically distinct but which have the same designator.
Although there has been work by ICAO and other bodies to eradicate non-unique waypoint names there are duplicates around the world. In order to avoid confusion latest standards state that such identical designators should be geographically widely spaced. In this specific event, both of the waypoints were located outside of the UK, one towards the beginning of the route and one towards the end; approximately 4000 nautical miles apart.
I'm genuinely amazed that such a thing is allowed. If you are processing a graph and there are duplicate IDs/names that is just asking for trouble. It seems to have been assumed that if they are far enough apart it won't cause a problem in practice, well clearly that's not correct.
Here's the fix.
9. The feasibility of working through the UK state with ICAO to remove the small number of duplicate waypoint names in the ICAO administered global dataset that relate to this incident.
Yeah, get cracking on that, it's ridiculous that they aren't unique.
They are 5 character (all caps) names.
Collisions are pretty likely: head to https://opennav.com/search & search for PINTO. You’ll get three responses.
Eliminating them requires two (or three) different ATC systems in countries that don’t necessarily get along to agree to the change. Repeat until you’ve eliminated all the duplicates in the system.
Eliminating duplicate names is a project for the long term. Doing something more intelligent than crashing the whole system when a duplicates appear in the same flight plan should have been implemented already. How about rejecting that plan and escalating it for human review? (We might also wonder why the submitting airline did not raise its own electronic eyebrow.)
My *guess* is that the other systems *should* catch this and disallow it from being submitted - otherwise we may have seen many more such cases. But at the end of the day, there has to be something low-down in the system, after user input has been entered from whatever source(s), that will detect such conflicts and throw a metaphorical exception.
This will almost certainly have been yet another swiss-cheese failure: many processes, perhaps run by different organisations, allowed the data to get through to being input into the traffic control system. Those processes need fixing - and as people say, having unique location IDs would be a great start. But even then you'd want the bottom level of the software to detect fallacious or corrupt data from being sent to the controllers.
The question is what should happen when that system gets such a corrupt case? It cannot allow it to go through, and the system is very time-critical; you may not be able to wait a few hours for someone outside the organisation to fix the error.
That can be a devil of a problem.
You'll like this: I have two different guys who share a name in my iPhone directory. I keeps asking me if I'd like to remove the duplicate, even though I have separated them by job role!
I was born and raised in a (relatively) rural area, though it is now more built-up. About half a mile up the road, on the outskirts of Derby, lived another man with an identical name to my dad's. They were unrelated, but used to regularly get each other's post.
To make matters worse, my brother shares his first name as well, meaning there were three on the street - though as my brother was young, he obviously did not get too much post...
The polls have been very interesting over the last 18 months and digging down a little into them does indeed show significant regional variations, whereby some Tories with smaller majorities in some parts could hang on whilst conversely in other areas they could lose with safer majorities on much bigger swings against them. I'm still thinking a smallish Lab majority of no more than 50 is likely. The visceral dislike and distrust of the Tories has bedded in strongly and the time for a change factor is very much in play.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
The Ukraine conflict has shown "nukes" is all Russia has - the idea of Russian armoured divisions sweeping across Poland and Germany to the Rhine brushing NATO resistance aside has been shown to be false in extremis.
Russia knows to engage NATO in a military conflict places it in the position NATO believed it was in the 1970s and 1980s - we'd have 72 hours before defeat was inevitable and it was a choice of capitulation or immolation. Putin knows the swift and certain defeat of his forces would leave him with the option of launch or lunch with the NATO officers to take Russia's surrender.
There's an argument however I put forward last spring which goes something like this - Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un, Biden, Sunak all have one thing in common. They all seem to like the finer things of life - good food, drink, nice clothes, holidays - all of that disappears for ever in the event of a nuclear war.
Even if you survive the nuclear fire, the post war life will be horrible, austere and bitter beyond words. That awaits us if those with access to nuclear weapons decide to use them which is why I believe and hope they never will - they have no doubt all been given access to studies which show the nature of the post-nuclear war world which presumably even makes Threads or the The Day After look over-optimistic. Who would want a world like that and what circumstances make getting to that world even remotely justifiable?
I think I agree with that, except Russia has another thing aside from nukes: information war. It can 'win' by persuading enough people in the west that Ukraine is not worth fighting over, the war is all NATOs fault, the Ukrainians are Nazis, that we're spending far too much defending them, that Russia's grievances are real, that the threat of nuclear oblivion is too great, that they'll starve Europe of power and food, etc, etc.
All of which is utterly ridiculous, but sadly some seem to believe.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is the US refusing to provide ATACMS, long range missiles that the UK has already sent, likely to lead to nuclear war. It has taken 18 months to provide Ukraine with modern fighter jets. Surprise, surprise, there was no nuclear escalation from Putin. As for not using air defence to shoot down Russian missiles near the Nato border, that's just silly.
Well we don't know what is likely to lead to nuclear war - that is one for the back channels between Moscow and Washington.
I ask you the same question, it was you who said that NATO has no backbone so what would you have them do?
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
In the absence of nuclear weapons, would you have the same fear of escalation?
Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ latest monthly Scottish independence referendum voting intention poll finds ‘no’ leading by 5%.
Altogether—with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses—49% (+1) of Scottish respondents say they would vote ‘no’ and 44% (-1) say they would vote ‘yes’ if there were to be a referendum tomorrow on whether Scotland should be an independent country. 6% (-1) don’t know how they would vote.
....
he next major electoral test for the Scottish parties is the next United Kingdom General Election, which must be held before January 2025.
When voters are asked who they would vote for if a UK General Election were held tomorrow, the Scottish National Party and Labour are tied on 35% each, the first time in our monthly tracker that the SNP has not held the lead in our Westminster voting intention Poll, and is only the second Westminster Voting Intention Poll publicly released by any company since June 2014 in which the SNP has not led in Scotland.
Altogether the results of our Westminster Voting Intention poll (with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses) are as follows:
Scottish National Party 35% (-2) Labour 35% (+1) Conservative 15% (-2) Liberal Democrat 8% (+1) Green 4% (+2) Reform 2% (–) Other 1% (–)
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
(Snip)
My first post on this topic was about it being more than a 'regional conflict'.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ latest monthly Scottish independence referendum voting intention poll finds ‘no’ leading by 5%.
Altogether—with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses—49% (+1) of Scottish respondents say they would vote ‘no’ and 44% (-1) say they would vote ‘yes’ if there were to be a referendum tomorrow on whether Scotland should be an independent country. 6% (-1) don’t know how they would vote.
....
he next major electoral test for the Scottish parties is the next United Kingdom General Election, which must be held before January 2025.
When voters are asked who they would vote for if a UK General Election were held tomorrow, the Scottish National Party and Labour are tied on 35% each, the first time in our monthly tracker that the SNP has not held the lead in our Westminster voting intention Poll, and is only the second Westminster Voting Intention Poll publicly released by any company since June 2014 in which the SNP has not led in Scotland.
Altogether the results of our Westminster Voting Intention poll (with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses) are as follows:
Scottish National Party 35% (-2) Labour 35% (+1) Conservative 15% (-2) Liberal Democrat 8% (+1) Green 4% (+2) Reform 2% (–) Other 1% (–)
Anyway, cats should be banned. Why is it right to let an animal you "own" and are responsible for out in the wild to do whatever it wants, kill wildlife and shit in my gravel drive? If you let a comparable sized dog out on its own, neighbourhood watch would go barmy.
Not to mention firefighter time wasted rescuing the little terrors from trees
(Does that still happen? Did it ever, outside of Fireman Sam and kids' books?)
Happened in Newark last year. Made the local paper so presumably fairly rare.
We're looking at houses in Newark. The town seems great, a nice cafe culture, loads of shops (including Waitrose- a deal breaker for the wife). Affordable. A lot of history, the castle, the park. Great transport links so we can travel up and down the country. Of all the towns we've visited, it's looking like the surprising winner!
I don't think you would regret it sir. I really do like the town and even though I moved about 15 miles away over into Lincolnshire I still consider it my home town. It has its minor problems like any other town but the successive Town Councils - of all political stripes- try very hard to make it a place people want to visit and stay.
The only down side for me (since this is of course PB) is the succession of pretty awful MPs. The latest being perhaps the worst.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
In the absence of nuclear weapons, would you have the same fear of escalation?
I don't think hypotheticals are of any value whatsoever and "fear of escalation" rather misses the point.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
(Snip)
My first post on this topic was about it being more than a 'regional conflict'.
Yes I got you and Frank Booth mixed up, corrected for in an edit.
Point still stands, though. What would you have NATO do that it is not doing now.
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Anyway, cats should be banned. Why is it right to let an animal you "own" and are responsible for out in the wild to do whatever it wants, kill wildlife and shit in my gravel drive? If you let a comparable sized dog out on its own, neighbourhood watch would go barmy.
Not to mention firefighter time wasted rescuing the little terrors from trees
(Does that still happen? Did it ever, outside of Fireman Sam and kids' books?)
Happened in Newark last year. Made the local paper so presumably fairly rare.
We're looking at houses in Newark. The town seems great, a nice cafe culture, loads of shops (including Waitrose- a deal breaker for the wife). Affordable. A lot of history, the castle, the park. Great transport links so we can travel up and down the country. Of all the towns we've visited, it's looking like the surprising winner!
I don't think you would regret it sir. I really do like the town and even though I moved about 15 miles away over into Lincolnshire I still consider it my home town. It has its minor problems like any other town but the successive Town Councils - of all political stripes- try very hard to make it a place people want to visit and stay.
The only down side for me (since this is of course PB) is the succession of pretty awful MPs. The latest being perhaps the worst.
Actually had an afternoon out there many years ago - to see the castle and the Civil War earthworks, mainly, but a very pleasant wander around. Very taken with a Swithland Slate gravestone in the yard of the church with the amaxingly high steeple which had an apprentice's practice session ABC ... on the normally buried part.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
In the absence of nuclear weapons, would you have the same fear of escalation?
I don't think hypotheticals are of any value whatsoever and "fear of escalation" rather misses the point.
The idea that Russia would risk WW3 over a regional conflict is a hypothetical. They haven't issued any concrete ultimatum, only bluster.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
In the absence of nuclear weapons, would you have the same fear of escalation?
I'm sure there's a strategist somewhere pointing out that nuking Moscow now is about as good as it gets.
Apart from the nuclear weapons bit I think I'd agree.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
(Snip)
My first post on this topic was about it being more than a 'regional conflict'.
Yes I got you and Frank Booth mixed up, corrected for in an edit.
Point still stands, though. What would you have NATO do that it is not doing now.
I'm unsure why you think the point still stands, as you were responding to the wrong person.
What's your answer to this problem, as it *seems* that it's to let Russia do what it wants? Apols if that's wrong, but that's the way it appears.
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
In the absence of nuclear weapons, would you have the same fear of escalation?
I don't think hypotheticals are of any value whatsoever and "fear of escalation" rather misses the point.
I agree that hypotheticals are no value whatsoever, so any hypothetical "escalation" or any hypothetical "nuclear attack" should be completely discounted as worthless.
A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”
The lawsuit, citing the 14th Amendment, is likely the initial step in a legal challenge that seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
It will jolt an already unsettled 2024 primary campaign that features the leading Republican candidate facing four separate criminal cases.
A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”
The lawsuit, citing the 14th Amendment, is likely the initial step in a legal challenge that seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
It will jolt an already unsettled 2024 primary campaign that features the leading Republican candidate facing four separate criminal cases.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ latest monthly Scottish independence referendum voting intention poll finds ‘no’ leading by 5%.
Altogether—with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses—49% (+1) of Scottish respondents say they would vote ‘no’ and 44% (-1) say they would vote ‘yes’ if there were to be a referendum tomorrow on whether Scotland should be an independent country. 6% (-1) don’t know how they would vote.
....
he next major electoral test for the Scottish parties is the next United Kingdom General Election, which must be held before January 2025.
When voters are asked who they would vote for if a UK General Election were held tomorrow, the Scottish National Party and Labour are tied on 35% each, the first time in our monthly tracker that the SNP has not held the lead in our Westminster voting intention Poll, and is only the second Westminster Voting Intention Poll publicly released by any company since June 2014 in which the SNP has not led in Scotland.
Altogether the results of our Westminster Voting Intention poll (with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses) are as follows:
Scottish National Party 35% (-2) Labour 35% (+1) Conservative 15% (-2) Liberal Democrat 8% (+1) Green 4% (+2) Reform 2% (–) Other 1% (–)
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
In the absence of nuclear weapons, would you have the same fear of escalation?
I don't think hypotheticals are of any value whatsoever and "fear of escalation" rather misses the point.
I agree that hypotheticals are no value whatsoever, so any hypothetical "escalation" or any hypothetical "nuclear attack" should be completely discounted as worthless.
You are committing a category error. We have nuclear weapons as does Russia and we can't uninvent them. Meanwhile performing scenario analysis is assessing likely or possible future events.
A nuclear attack is possible, while a world where no one, or at least Russia and "the West" don't have nuclear weapons is not possible.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
Much of it is just bring short term lets in line with long term rental agreements - safety tests, registration etc.
STLs literally destroyed the life of one of my friends. Was forced to move back in with their parents, sold their flat. Had 6 of them in their tenement.
Anyway, cats should be banned. Why is it right to let an animal you "own" and are responsible for out in the wild to do whatever it wants, kill wildlife and shit in my gravel drive? If you let a comparable sized dog out on its own, neighbourhood watch would go barmy.
Not to mention firefighter time wasted rescuing the little terrors from trees
(Does that still happen? Did it ever, outside of Fireman Sam and kids' books?)
Happened in Newark last year. Made the local paper so presumably fairly rare.
We're looking at houses in Newark. The town seems great, a nice cafe culture, loads of shops (including Waitrose- a deal breaker for the wife). Affordable. A lot of history, the castle, the park. Great transport links so we can travel up and down the country. Of all the towns we've visited, it's looking like the surprising winner!
I don't think you would regret it sir. I really do like the town and even though I moved about 15 miles away over into Lincolnshire I still consider it my home town. It has its minor problems like any other town but the successive Town Councils - of all political stripes- try very hard to make it a place people want to visit and stay.
The only down side for me (since this is of course PB) is the succession of pretty awful MPs. The latest being perhaps the worst.
I agree about the town council. Parking is easy, lots of tourist info, genuinely really welcoming. Mind you, my benchmark is Loughborough. A town that actively hates itself, with dead town centre, crap parking. Student flats being built everywhere and all its history being erased.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ latest monthly Scottish independence referendum voting intention poll finds ‘no’ leading by 5%.
Altogether—with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses—49% (+1) of Scottish respondents say they would vote ‘no’ and 44% (-1) say they would vote ‘yes’ if there were to be a referendum tomorrow on whether Scotland should be an independent country. 6% (-1) don’t know how they would vote.
....
he next major electoral test for the Scottish parties is the next United Kingdom General Election, which must be held before January 2025.
When voters are asked who they would vote for if a UK General Election were held tomorrow, the Scottish National Party and Labour are tied on 35% each, the first time in our monthly tracker that the SNP has not held the lead in our Westminster voting intention Poll, and is only the second Westminster Voting Intention Poll publicly released by any company since June 2014 in which the SNP has not led in Scotland.
Altogether the results of our Westminster Voting Intention poll (with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses) are as follows:
Scottish National Party 35% (-2) Labour 35% (+1) Conservative 15% (-2) Liberal Democrat 8% (+1) Green 4% (+2) Reform 2% (–) Other 1% (–)
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
In the absence of nuclear weapons, would you have the same fear of escalation?
I don't think hypotheticals are of any value whatsoever and "fear of escalation" rather misses the point.
I agree that hypotheticals are no value whatsoever, so any hypothetical "escalation" or any hypothetical "nuclear attack" should be completely discounted as worthless.
You are committing a category error. We have nuclear weapons as does Russia and we can't uninvent them. Meanwhile performing scenario analysis is assessing likely or possible future events.
A nuclear attack is possible, while a world where no one, or at least Russia and "the West" don't have nuclear weapons is not possible.
Your welcome.
My welcome what?
Sorry.
Yes the world has nuclear weapons, but there is no non-hypothetical reason to take them into account in this war. Russia isn't facing nuclear Armageddon so has absolutely no reason to use its nukes, which would result in nuclear Armageddon if they did use them.
We should deal with the war as it is, not absurd hypotheticals like "but nukes".
An undercover police officer used his fake identity to deceive a woman into a 19-year relationship in which they became partners and had a child together, the Guardian can reveal.
The officer concealed his real identity from the woman for the duration of that period, never telling her his real occupation, and using his fictitious identity on the birth certificate of their son.
In 2020, after the couple were engaged to be married, the woman discovered that her fiance, whom she believed to be a businessman, was in fact a police officer who had subjected her to a sophisticated deception lasting almost two decades.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating senior officers at Avon and Somerset police, who knew about the undercover officer’s relationship with the woman as far back as 2013.
They appear to have waited at least seven years before informing the woman that the person she knew as her fiance had been using a fake identity given to him for use in covert police operations. In a statement, the IOPC confirmed it was investigating the case.
The woman, whom the Guardian is referring to as “Mary” to protect her identity, does not want to speak publicly about the experience. However, her relatives say that she is “a shadow of the person we used to know”.
“This whole thing has broken her,” Mary’s sister said. “She has expressed suicidal thoughts. She cries daily. She does not sleep. She is really fearful.”
News of the deception has upended the entire family’s lives. “Our dad, the stress of this has destroyed his health. This has put him in hospital. My mum is on antidepressants, she can’t sleep at night. We can’t talk about this to anybody, not even with our own children,” Mary’s sister added. “It’s broken us as a family.”
Mary’s family accuse Avon and Somerset police of bullying and threatening them over the last three years in an effort to discourage them from speaking to the press.
Senior police, they say, warned them that if the public were to become aware of the 19-year relationship the revelation could spark riots. However, Mary’s family now believe this and other warnings were used to co-opt them into a “cover-up” of the scandal.
Outside of suburban London I doubt there will be any local issues as significant as ULEZ. However Tory MPs may benefit a bit from incumbency
Green belt. Migrant camps. (Will Portland vote Tory again? Though note it's carefully at one end of Mr Drax's constituency.) Schools made with RAAC and other dodgy stuff.
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
In the absence of nuclear weapons, would you have the same fear of escalation?
I don't think hypotheticals are of any value whatsoever and "fear of escalation" rather misses the point.
I agree that hypotheticals are no value whatsoever, so any hypothetical "escalation" or any hypothetical "nuclear attack" should be completely discounted as worthless.
You are committing a category error. We have nuclear weapons as does Russia and we can't uninvent them. Meanwhile performing scenario analysis is assessing likely or possible future events.
A nuclear attack is possible, while a world where no one, or at least Russia and "the West" don't have nuclear weapons is not possible.
Your welcome.
My welcome what?
Sorry.
Yes the world has nuclear weapons, but there is no non-hypothetical reason to take them into account in this war. Russia isn't facing nuclear Armageddon so has absolutely no reason to use its nukes, which would result in nuclear Armageddon if they did use them.
We should deal with the war as it is, not absurd hypotheticals like "but nukes".
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
In the absence of nuclear weapons, would you have the same fear of escalation?
I don't think hypotheticals are of any value whatsoever and "fear of escalation" rather misses the point.
I agree that hypotheticals are no value whatsoever, so any hypothetical "escalation" or any hypothetical "nuclear attack" should be completely discounted as worthless.
You are committing a category error. We have nuclear weapons as does Russia and we can't uninvent them. Meanwhile performing scenario analysis is assessing likely or possible future events.
A nuclear attack is possible, while a world where no one, or at least Russia and "the West" don't have nuclear weapons is not possible.
Your welcome.
Ukraine are not a passive actor in this.
They had nuclear weapons and gave them up for promises to defend their territorial integrity.
They have the nuclear material and the engineering capability. They could easily go straight to 2 point implosion system which in actually easier to build than the earlier complex implosion systems. The barrier to that was computational capability. Which was passed in the early 1950s. These days you could run the engineering simulation on your phone.
Plus a 2 point system would be easier to cool, if they are using high burnup plutonium.
The only thing separating Ukraine from the bomb is simple chemistry, simple engineering and the desire to do it.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
Much of it is just bring short term lets in line with long term rental agreements - safety tests, registration etc.
STLs literally destroyed the life of one of my friends. Was forced to move back in with their parents, sold their flat. Had 6 of them in their tenement.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
One of us is refusing to face reality and it's not me. You have never told me what you plan on doing to stop all this in its tracks.
How is accepting and recognising how Russia has acted in the past "refusing to face reality" ? Because you are ignoring their past actions.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
And you can't help reverting to being a dick.
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
In the absence of nuclear weapons, would you have the same fear of escalation?
I don't think hypotheticals are of any value whatsoever and "fear of escalation" rather misses the point.
I agree that hypotheticals are no value whatsoever, so any hypothetical "escalation" or any hypothetical "nuclear attack" should be completely discounted as worthless.
You are committing a category error. We have nuclear weapons as does Russia and we can't uninvent them. Meanwhile performing scenario analysis is assessing likely or possible future events.
A nuclear attack is possible, while a world where no one, or at least Russia and "the West" don't have nuclear weapons is not possible.
Your welcome.
Ukraine are not a passive actor in this.
They had nuclear weapons and gave them up for promises to defend their territorial integrity.
They have the nuclear material and the engineering capability. They could easily go straight to 2 point implosion system which in actually easier to build than the earlier complex implosion systems. The barrier to that was computational capability. Which was passed in the early 1950s. These days you could run the engineering simulation on your phone.
Plus a 2 point system would be easier to cool, if they are using high burnup plutonium.
The only thing separating Ukraine from the bomb is simple chemistry, simple engineering and the desire to do it.
Isn't Russia pulling out of the non-proliferation treaty?
While PBers will understand the significance of regional vs constituency (the latter balances out the effects of the former, within reason and for larger parties), I'm surprised that the voters are that discriminating, with a big jump in SNP support for the latter and a big drop for the former. What might be the explanation (given that it's the same people answering the same poll)?
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
There are three - 207, 17 and 617, so plural is correct, I'd plead. But the former admittedly being the OCU, which wouldn't be called a squadron in the old days ... and I was surprised to find, on checking, that the Mod website claims the F-35 as "flying with" 6 Sqn - well, no, not unless Alsatians are even more intelligent than Border Collies!
While PBers will understand the significance of regional vs constituency (the latter balances out the effects of the former, within reason and for larger parties), I'm surprised that the voters are that discriminating, with a big jump in SNP support for the latter and a big drop for the former. What might be the explanation (given that it's the same people answering the same poll)?
Incumbency, I suspect. More SNP in constituency, Slab in the loser's seats (the entire rationale of the voting system, remember).
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
In 1914 the Royal Navy was rather well prepared for dealing with the German fleet. Which spent much of the war trying to avoid its jailers… the submarine problem was as a result of that success.
In 1939 the biggest problem was that Hitler started the war before he was ready - the RN was building towards being 100% ready in 1941, given the German plan to be ready in 1942.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
While PBers will understand the significance of regional vs constituency (the latter balances out the effects of the former, within reason and for larger parties), I'm surprised that the voters are that discriminating, with a big jump in SNP support for the latter and a big drop for the former. What might be the explanation (given that it's the same people answering the same poll)?
Don't voters in Scotland cast separate votes for MSP by constituency AND region? And have been doing so over number of elections?
Which would seem to go a looooooooong way in explaining polling differences, since many voters are used to voting for one party's candidate at constituency level, but another at regional level.
And may well be planning to do so again at next GE. Or doing so for the first time.
Unpopular view: I think there are far too many dogs in this country, many of which are poorly trained or controlled by their owners.
Far too many are off leads - because they're lazy - and if their dog starts jumping or barking at you (or quite often my kids) almost the first thing they said is "oh, don't worry, he won't bite!" - which is the dog owner equivalent of a builder shouting out "cheer up, love!" to a lady in the street. They lack grace and sort of assume you must be a wrong 'un because their dog doesn't like you, so are entirely unapologetic about it.
Get your dog f-ing off me and my family and keep it under control. Not all of us want to be pawed or mauled when we go out for a walk, nor deal with braindead owners who don't take responsibility.
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
In 1914 the Royal Navy was rather well prepared for dealing with the German fleet. Which spent much of the war trying to avoid its jailers… the submarine problem was as a result of that success.
In 1939 the biggest problem was that Hitler started the war before he was ready - the RN was building towards being 100% ready in 1941, given the German plan to be ready in 1942.
Come along - the RN simply didn't know what it should do in 1914 - and probably doing nothing was the right call.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
In 1914 the Royal Navy was rather well prepared for dealing with the German fleet. Which spent much of the war trying to avoid its jailers… the submarine problem was as a result of that success.
In 1939 the biggest problem was that Hitler started the war before he was ready - the RN was building towards being 100% ready in 1941, given the German plan to be ready in 1942.
Come along - the RN simply didn't know what it should so in 1914 - and probably doing nothing was the right call.
Distant blockade worked like clockwork and was vital to the eventual defeat of Germany in WWI
Bottling up the German surface navy was step one in this.
A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”
The lawsuit, citing the 14th Amendment, is likely the initial step in a legal challenge that seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
It will jolt an already unsettled 2024 primary campaign that features the leading Republican candidate facing four separate criminal cases.
Utterly futile. The Supreme Court will dismiss such a bar 6-3
Trump needs to be defeated at the ballot box. Again.
Personally, I think the Supreme Court will dismiss it by more than that, quite possibly 9-0, because the argument is weak.
People slightly overstate the partisan aspect of the US courts, particularly the Supreme Court. It's certainly true that they follow different judicial doctrines such that it's reasonable to talk about a liberal group and a conservative group. But they are actually, in general, trying to get a legally correct answer.
For example, Roberts and Kavanagh recently voted to require Alabama to redraw a Congressional map that was advantageous to the GOP but appeared in breach of the Voting Rights Act. Away from the Supreme Court, conservative, Trump appointed judges were among those to dismiss out of hand all the many misconceived cases brought by the Trump campaign following the 2020 election.
I may be wrong on this, and I know those pushing it has recruited a few constitutional lawyers who can't be airily dismissed as total cranks, but the legal argument for disqualifying Trump under the 14th amendment looks pretty weak to me, and I'm very far from convinced the three liberals will bite.
Having been a optimist on the war in Ukraine I am increasingly feeling pessimistic now. We don't know how the counter offensive will finally play out, a major breakthrough remains possible but the west appears to be losing interest and the Russian population seems in no mind to do anything about it.
Let me start with the attack on the grain in Reni. It is unclear whether any missiles or drones landed on Nato territory, the Ukrainians claim they did and there seems to be little attempt to geolocate etc to get to the bottom of it. No surprise as we saw something similar with Poland last year. Why does Putin feel emboldened to take such a risk anyway right on a Nato border? We are talking about grain being sent to feed some of the world's poorest people. What is to stop Romanian air defence from shooting down missiles near their border with Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukrainians would not object. But even this is too much of an escalation for Nato. All they would be doing is neutralising Russian missiles but no, this would bring Nato into direct conflict with Russia and that cannot be allowed. It beats me as to why there isn't more anger towards Russia from the global south about this but there you go. The Saudis cut oil production which should help Russia pay the bills for that much longer.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy suffers because of the difficulty exporting through the Black Sea as they're being held hostage by the Russian Navy. Never mind that the Russian navy is nothing special and has fewer ships in the region than Turkey alone. That once you get to the Romanian border you are in entirely Nato waters. The narrative is all about whether Putin will extend the grain deal. He is the agent in all this. It's a matter of his beneficence. Why? Because Nato has no backbone. As the old saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Putin might have misjudged many things but he saw the cowardice of Nato all too clearly.
Anthony Blinken is back in Kyiv meeting a dog. Still no sign of ATACMS. Still no attempt to get control of Black Sea shipping. F16s will arrive sometime before Godot. Taurus missiles? More tanks? Perhaps it is time for major western leaders to fess up. What is it they are afraid of?
They are afraid of WWIII starting on account of a regional conflict.
Which bit of that is so hard for you to fathom.
It's a heck of a lot more than a 'regional conflict', isn't it? It has widespread effects on global geopolitics.
It's a regional conflict. The Israel/Palestine conflict had/has widespread effects on global geopolitics but NATO stayed out of that one.
LOL. No. Nowhere near, and that's a rather crass comparison. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not exactly as hot, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last eighteen months, thousands of armoured vehicles destroyed, territory of a sovereign independent nation invaded, power and other threats against western and NATO countries, and with the belligerent nation being the direct descendent of the very enemy NATO was set up to counter.
So yeah, aside from all of that, it's a *great* comparison...
Given that it was fought as a proxy war between the Cold War powers it is an extremely good comparison.
As to numbers, sub-Saharan Africa says hi.
You haven't actually addressed my points, have you? Those factors make it a heck of a lot more than just a 'regional conflict'; in fact the concern of it spreading and becoming WWIII that you state is exactly because it is so much more than a 'regional conflict'.
When the "region" is Europe it's a bit different to the Middle East or something. Krakow is just over the border.
I think it boils down to whether you think Ukraine is a nascent European/EU/Western country or not. I think it is, and I also think it is in our interest to support and protect those countries that wish to emulate our way of doing things.
We are currently engaged upon a proxy war in Ukraine whereby NATO countries (which is not the same as NATO) are providing materiel to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the "Global South" is supporting Russia in one way or another if only by abstaining from censure.
Hence who are the powers? Global North vs Global South or NATO vs FSU? Or...
I'm not particularly sure.
Plus it's on our doorstep (vs 1,500 miles Israel => NATO country).
I do know, however, that it is a treacherously difficult line to tread because it appears, and push me and I'll tell you that I have some sympathy with this view, that we (as in the governments) don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. So we are feeling our way.
The original question was "will NATO leaders please tell us what they are afraid of" and I maintain that it is a question of the greatest inanity.
I agree the original question was a bit silly, but I also think your response is really silly. It's clearly much greater than a "regional conflict".
"... don't want to immolate the planet on account of the Donetsk Oblast. "
Yes, but they also don't want Russia to invade other neighbouring countries. And it's been clear over the last twenty years that every tie you cave in to Russia, they'll just take more. You may be happy with them to get Donetsk; would you be happy with them getting Georgia? Kazakhstan? How about if they try for the Baltics (and don't screech 'NATO'; Putin already thinks NATO is weak).
Yeah good point. There is a good phrase/concept in various conflict assessments which is, when you cut through the jargon, "first things first". That is, deal with what is in front of you and while not ignoring potential scenarios and contingent planning, not heading off down a path which may prove to be a waste or even counterproductive.
As for your endless "what ifs" (scenarios, true) then I'm not sure where it gets us because we are dealing with a nuclear power under command of Vladimir Putin. The thing I have railed against on PB aside from hot from the front line twitter links which illustrate nothing whatsoever, is the tendency to impose an historical inevitability on this war. We don't know what will happen and because you think Russia should win or lose doesn't mean that they will. Go back two thousand years and those with "right" on their side I'm sure have lost as often as they have won.
And coming back to those scenarios - suppose we say we aren't happy for Russia to do any of those things what would you do to address this and ensure that they don't indeed do them.
You talk about *my* what-if scenarios, whilst continually warning about a nuclear war; a call straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook. I'm not saying you are a Russian propagandist; just that they use that line, hoping that the fear will stop the west from doing nothing.
So you are what-if'ing as much as I am.
As it happens, I haven't said Ukraine will win. I *have* said that it's hard to see a route for Russia to get a 'win' where they are better off than if they had not started this hideous little conflict. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's perfectly possible for all sides to lose, even in victory. But Russia might be able to sell a hideous loss in men, material and money to their public as a 'win' if they can say they've gained territory. And if they sell a 'win', they'll be back for more soon.
I am continually warning about a nuclear war because the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. Will it rival the Cuba crisis or that night in 1983 when we came within a hair's breadth of one who knows.
If this acknowledgement is "straight out of a Russian propagandist's playbook" then welcome to the realities of a real time unknown global conflict. Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer.
Ah, so your "what-if's" are allowable and sensible, whilst mine are apparently not.
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
The Ukraine conflict has shown "nukes" is all Russia has - the idea of Russian armoured divisions sweeping across Poland and Germany to the Rhine brushing NATO resistance aside has been shown to be false in extremis.
Russia knows to engage NATO in a military conflict places it in the position NATO believed it was in the 1970s and 1980s - we'd have 72 hours before defeat was inevitable and it was a choice of capitulation or immolation. Putin knows the swift and certain defeat of his forces would leave him with the option of launch or lunch with the NATO officers to take Russia's surrender.
There's an argument however I put forward last spring which goes something like this - Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un, Biden, Sunak all have one thing in common. They all seem to like the finer things of life - good food, drink, nice clothes, holidays - all of that disappears for ever in the event of a nuclear war.
Even if you survive the nuclear fire, the post war life will be horrible, austere and bitter beyond words. That awaits us if those with access to nuclear weapons decide to use them which is why I believe and hope they never will - they have no doubt all been given access to studies which show the nature of the post-nuclear war world which presumably even makes Threads or the The Day After look over-optimistic. Who would want a world like that and what circumstances make getting to that world even remotely justifiable?
I think I agree with that, except Russia has another thing aside from nukes: information war. It can 'win' by persuading enough people in the west that Ukraine is not worth fighting over, the war is all NATOs fault, the Ukrainians are Nazis, that we're spending far too much defending them, that Russia's grievances are real, that the threat of nuclear oblivion is too great, that they'll starve Europe of power and food, etc, etc.
All of which is utterly ridiculous, but sadly some seem to believe.
It's about the only hope Putin has at the moment.
I'm not going to argue propaganda and misinformation aren't formidable weapons when used by experts. The Ukrainians don't need such devices - they are fighting on their own soil, defending their own lands. As recent experiences have shown, when it comes to your own country, people will make the greatest of sacrifices.
I'd argue even the Iraqis fought to defend Iraq from foreign aggression but while they have had the will they lacked the means and somethines that's how it is with aggression from the Czechs in 1968 to the Falklanders in 1982 and the Kuwaitis in 1990.
As for those beyond the screams, the deaths and the anguish of war, yes, it is more difficult. On site reporting helps to remind whose land is being invaded and who is doing the invading but I agree there's a requirement to put in simple terms what we are fighting FOR rather than simply what we are fighting AGAINST.
An undercover police officer used his fake identity to deceive a woman into a 19-year relationship in which they became partners and had a child together, the Guardian can reveal.
The officer concealed his real identity from the woman for the duration of that period, never telling her his real occupation, and using his fictitious identity on the birth certificate of their son.
In 2020, after the couple were engaged to be married, the woman discovered that her fiance, whom she believed to be a businessman, was in fact a police officer who had subjected her to a sophisticated deception lasting almost two decades.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating senior officers at Avon and Somerset police, who knew about the undercover officer’s relationship with the woman as far back as 2013.
They appear to have waited at least seven years before informing the woman that the person she knew as her fiance had been using a fake identity given to him for use in covert police operations. In a statement, the IOPC confirmed it was investigating the case.
The woman, whom the Guardian is referring to as “Mary” to protect her identity, does not want to speak publicly about the experience. However, her relatives say that she is “a shadow of the person we used to know”.
“This whole thing has broken her,” Mary’s sister said. “She has expressed suicidal thoughts. She cries daily. She does not sleep. She is really fearful.”
News of the deception has upended the entire family’s lives. “Our dad, the stress of this has destroyed his health. This has put him in hospital. My mum is on antidepressants, she can’t sleep at night. We can’t talk about this to anybody, not even with our own children,” Mary’s sister added. “It’s broken us as a family.”
Mary’s family accuse Avon and Somerset police of bullying and threatening them over the last three years in an effort to discourage them from speaking to the press.
Senior police, they say, warned them that if the public were to become aware of the 19-year relationship the revelation could spark riots. However, Mary’s family now believe this and other warnings were used to co-opt them into a “cover-up” of the scandal.
This is amazing stuff, and they keep coming up, including all the leftish ones who were taken in for years by undercover cops. To most of the rest of us, even making allowances for the fact that all men are liars (says so in the Psalms so must be true), and all women are capable of self deception and even bright ones can be remarkably dim, this seems impossible for both parties.
Amor caecus est; and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
I'm scared that one day my wife will discover that when she thinks I'm working, I'm actually hanging out on PB.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”
The lawsuit, citing the 14th Amendment, is likely the initial step in a legal challenge that seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
It will jolt an already unsettled 2024 primary campaign that features the leading Republican candidate facing four separate criminal cases.
Utterly futile. The Supreme Court will dismiss such a bar 6-3
Trump needs to be defeated at the ballot box. Again.
Personally, I think the Supreme Court will dismiss it by more than that, quite possibly 9-0, because the argument is weak.
People slightly overstate the partisan aspect of the US courts, particularly the Supreme Court. It's certainly true that they follow different judicial doctrines such that it's reasonable to talk about a liberal group and a conservative group. But they are actually, in general, trying to get a legally correct answer.
For example, Roberts and Kavanagh recently voted to require Alabama to redraw a Congressional map that was advantageous to the GOP but appeared in breach of the Voting Rights Act. Away from the Supreme Court, conservative, Trump appointed judges were among those to dismiss out of hand all the many misconceived cases brought by the Trump campaign following the 2020 election.
I may be wrong on this, and I know those pushing it has recruited a few constitutional lawyers who can't be airily dismissed as total cranks, but the legal argument for disqualifying Trump under the 14th amendment looks pretty weak to me, and I'm very far from convinced the three liberals will bite.
Short of a conviction in a court case regarding 6 January it probably will and should be 9-0.
Even if convicted, it will probably be dismissed 6-3 though.
Comments
The owner was fined £900.
Fucksake. Grow a backbone. Ban them. Tell the RSPCA to go jump in a lake, full of “friendly” sharks
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs
UK to re-- join Horizon
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-to-rejoin-eus-horizon-science-programme-after-a-two-year-absence-12956207
England have added Harry Brook to their 50-over squad to play New Zealand, giving the batter further chance to press his claim before the World Cup.
Brook, 24, has been called up as batting cover for the four-match series, starting in Cardiff on Friday.
Jonny Bairstow has a shoulder issue and fellow batter Dawid Malan's wife is due to give birth in the coming weeks.
Brook has also been named in a squad captained by Zak Crawley for three matches against Ireland that follow.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66724714
Do free movement for musicians on tour next. That’s another completely ridiculous self-inflicted injury.
Like the Stones and the Beatles, you can like both! (Beatles are obviously better, but still.)
Good to be home early to "enjoy" this heat which we are all supposed to be doing (apparently).
There is a group or demographic (well represented on PB I think) for whom 1992 was a traumatic experience both in terms of which side won but the realisation the previously-infallible polls might be wrong (in fairness, 1987 hadn't been their finest hour either). Some might have suffered a financial trauma in the relatively unsophisticated betting and trading environments of the time.
Could it happen again? Inasmuch as anything can happen, yes, and I'm convinced Starmer and Labour take nothing for granted and the way the party is being positioned mirrors 1997.
ULEZ, for example, was a desperate attempt to create, to use the phrase, "clear blue water" between the two parties and succeeded but the result in Uxbridge itself mirroed what didn't happen in Hillingdon in the previous year's local elections.
The current picture is of a Conservative vote of surprising resilience in some places but surprising weakness in others. Back to 1997 and the national UNS was 10% but that disguised a smaller swing in the north and a bigger swing in London and in some places swings approaching 20%.
At the moment, I could well envisage some Conservatives surivivng on relatively small swings (5%) and others falling to much bigger swings (20%+). The problem I have with a Labour majority is 12.7 million voted Conservative in England in December 2019 and some of the majorities in English seats are very large even with swings of 13-15%.
We're relying on a combination of factors of which I think four are relevant - direct switchers to Labour, direct switchers to Reform, abstentions and tactical voting. The weight of these factors will vary from seat to seat but all will play their part somewhere.
Currently we can reckon on 4-4.5 million of that vote being no longer committed to the Conservatives, about 2-2.5 million have moved to Labour, we know another million or so may not vote currently, perhaps half a million to Reform and some tv movement from LD to Labour and vice versa.
As you say let's hope this rapprochement continues and develops for all our mutual benefits
The officer concealed his real identity from the woman for the duration of that period, never telling her his real occupation, and using his fictitious identity on the birth certificate of their son.
In 2020, after the couple were engaged to be married, the woman discovered that her fiance, whom she believed to be a businessman, was in fact a police officer who had subjected her to a sophisticated deception lasting almost two decades.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating senior officers at Avon and Somerset police, who knew about the undercover officer’s relationship with the woman as far back as 2013.
They appear to have waited at least seven years before informing the woman that the person she knew as her fiance had been using a fake identity given to him for use in covert police operations. In a statement, the IOPC confirmed it was investigating the case.
The woman, whom the Guardian is referring to as “Mary” to protect her identity, does not want to speak publicly about the experience. However, her relatives say that she is “a shadow of the person we used to know”.
“This whole thing has broken her,” Mary’s sister said. “She has expressed suicidal thoughts. She cries daily. She does not sleep. She is really fearful.”
News of the deception has upended the entire family’s lives. “Our dad, the stress of this has destroyed his health. This has put him in hospital. My mum is on antidepressants, she can’t sleep at night. We can’t talk about this to anybody, not even with our own children,” Mary’s sister added. “It’s broken us as a family.”
Mary’s family accuse Avon and Somerset police of bullying and threatening them over the last three years in an effort to discourage them from speaking to the press.
Senior police, they say, warned them that if the public were to become aware of the 19-year relationship the revelation could spark riots. However, Mary’s family now believe this and other warnings were used to co-opt them into a “cover-up” of the scandal.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/06/revealed-undercover-uk-police-officer-deceived-woman-relationship?CMP=share_btn_tw
You argue the probability of a nuclear war over this is non-trivial. I'd agree. But I'd also suggest that the scenarios you downplay are *more* likely, if only because they follow actions Russia has taken in the past; and make nuclear war more likely in the medium and long term.
"Because if you do a Barty and volunteer up your children at an early stage over Ukraine then you bring that moment ever closer."
That's a crass thing to say. In response, I'll state that the argument you put forward; a fear-filled, let-Russia-do-what-it-wants one, is the same argument that others were putting forwards after the invasion of Georgia. After Litvinenko. After Ukraine 2014. After Salisbury. The argument that we should not stand up to Russia in any meaningful way "coz nukes".
And Russia escalates every time.
And I mean, fucking hell.
https://twitter.com/PidginPosting/status/1699099785964249138/photo/1
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/i-run-short-term-lets-27658888
Amor caecus est; and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Providing of course that he comes on here the day after the tory GE shellacking and admits that he got this wrong.
xx
Russia knows to engage NATO in a military conflict places it in the position NATO believed it was in the 1970s and 1980s - we'd have 72 hours before defeat was inevitable and it was a choice of capitulation or immolation. Putin knows the swift and certain defeat of his forces would leave him with the option of launch or lunch with the NATO officers to take Russia's surrender.
There's an argument however I put forward last spring which goes something like this - Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un, Biden, Sunak all have one thing in common. They all seem to like the finer things of life - good food, drink, nice clothes, holidays - all of that disappears for ever in the event of a nuclear war.
Even if you survive the nuclear fire, the post war life will be horrible, austere and bitter beyond words. That awaits us if those with access to nuclear weapons decide to use them which is why I believe and hope they never will - they have no doubt all been given access to studies which show the nature of the post-nuclear war world which presumably even makes Threads or the The Day After look over-optimistic. Who would want a world like that and what circumstances make getting to that world even remotely justifiable?
Altogether—with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses—49% (+1) of Scottish respondents say they would vote ‘no’ and 44% (-1) say they would vote ‘yes’ if there were to be a referendum tomorrow on whether Scotland should be an independent country. 6% (-1) don’t know how they would vote.
....
he next major electoral test for the Scottish parties is the next United Kingdom General Election, which must be held before January 2025.
When voters are asked who they would vote for if a UK General Election were held tomorrow, the Scottish National Party and Labour are tied on 35% each, the first time in our monthly tracker that the SNP has not held the lead in our Westminster voting intention Poll, and is only the second Westminster Voting Intention Poll publicly released by any company since June 2014 in which the SNP has not led in Scotland.
Altogether the results of our Westminster Voting Intention poll (with changes from 5-6 August in parentheses) are as follows:
Scottish National Party 35% (-2)
Labour 35% (+1)
Conservative 15% (-2)
Liberal Democrat 8% (+1)
Green 4% (+2)
Reform 2% (–)
Other 1% (–)
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-2-4-september-2023/
Starmer is a dud but has better ratings in Scotland than Yousaf.
As for a plan: I've never offered one; and if I did, the usual lovely people would start saying "Armchair warriors!".
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
https://news.sky.com/story/brian-cox-and-brian-cox-involved-in-hotel-check-in-mishap-12750308
(A story that proves that the title field is worthwhile including after all – Professor Brian Cox vs Mr Brian Cox)
Holyrood Constituency VI (2-4 September):
SNP 39% (+3)
Labour 30% (-2)
Conservative 16% (-3)
Lib Dem 8% (–)
Green 3% (+1)
Reform 3% (+2)
Alba 1% (–)
Other 0% (–)
Changes +/- 5-6 August
Labour leads the SNP by 5% in regional VI for a Scottish parliamentary election.
Holyrood Regional List VI (2-4 September):
Labour 30% (–)
SNP 25% (-4)
Conservatives 15% (-3)
Green 14% (+5)
Lib Dems 9% (-1)
Alba 4% (+2)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1699455118276481170
I have two different guys who share a name in my iPhone directory. I keeps asking me if I'd like to remove the duplicate, even though I have separated them by job role!
Which was why the British one used Winston S. Churchill from that point on.
To make matters worse, my brother shares his first name as well, meaning there were three on the street - though as my brother was young, he obviously did not get too much post...
My plan is to acknowledge the reality of the situation we are facing, that it is a tightrope in terms of support provided to Ukraine, and not to believe something will happen because I want it to happen. I am accepting powerlessness in the Russian-Ukraine war beyond the type of help that we are providing.
Your very first post on this implied that NATO wasn't doing enough and should man up and hence I wondered what it was you would like them to do.
"Because NATO has no backbone" is what you implied you agreed with.
So again I'm asking, let's give NATO a backbone - what would you have it do.
All of which is utterly ridiculous, but sadly some seem to believe.
It's about the only hope Putin has at the moment.
I ask you the same question, it was you who said that NATO has no backbone so what would you have them do?
Anyway, have these STL owners thought about approaching the Red Cross or UN for support?
The only down side for me (since this is of course PB) is the succession of pretty awful MPs. The latest being perhaps the worst.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
Point still stands, though. What would you have NATO do that it is not doing now.
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/new-defence-secretary-grant-shapps-confuses-raf-royal-navy/
Apart from the nuclear weapons bit I think I'd agree.
https://twitter.com/mjrsumption/status/1699405271779487975
What's your answer to this problem, as it *seems* that it's to let Russia do what it wants? Apols if that's wrong, but that's the way it appears.
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
https://www.texastribune.org/series/ken-paxton-impeachment-texas-attorney-general/
The lawsuit, citing the 14th Amendment, is likely the initial step in a legal challenge that seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
It will jolt an already unsettled 2024 primary campaign that features the leading Republican candidate facing four separate criminal cases.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-constitution-2024-election-primary-ballot-19ca3f17881e8818302cb1260e7c2aed
Trump needs to be defeated at the ballot box. Again.
On Electoral Calculus it produces a Scottish seat count (old constituencies) of Lab 27 (+26), SNP 22 (-26), Con 5 (-1), LD 5 (+1).
A nuclear attack is possible, while a world where no one, or at least Russia and "the West" don't have nuclear weapons is not possible.
Your welcome.
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
STLs literally destroyed the life of one of my friends. Was forced to move back in with their parents, sold their flat. Had 6 of them in their tenement.
Sorry.
Yes the world has nuclear weapons, but there is no non-hypothetical reason to take them into account in this war. Russia isn't facing nuclear Armageddon so has absolutely no reason to use its nukes, which would result in nuclear Armageddon if they did use them.
We should deal with the war as it is, not absurd hypotheticals like "but nukes".
Migrant camps. (Will Portland vote Tory again? Though note it's carefully at one end of Mr Drax's constituency.)
Schools made with RAAC and other dodgy stuff.
Would you?
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
They had nuclear weapons and gave them up for promises to defend their territorial integrity.
They have the nuclear material and the engineering capability. They could easily go straight to 2 point implosion system which in actually easier to build than the earlier complex implosion systems. The barrier to that was computational capability. Which was passed in the early 1950s. These days you could run the engineering simulation on your phone.
Plus a 2 point system would be easier to cool, if they are using high burnup plutonium.
The only thing separating Ukraine from the bomb is simple chemistry, simple engineering and the desire to do it.
In 1939 the biggest problem was that Hitler started the war before he was ready - the RN was building towards being 100% ready in 1941, given the German plan to be ready in 1942.
Which would seem to go a looooooooong way in explaining polling differences, since many voters are used to voting for one party's candidate at constituency level, but another at regional level.
And may well be planning to do so again at next GE. Or doing so for the first time.
Far too many are off leads - because they're lazy - and if their dog starts jumping or barking at you (or quite often my kids) almost the first thing they said is "oh, don't worry, he won't bite!" - which is the dog owner equivalent of a builder shouting out "cheer up, love!" to a lady in the street. They lack grace and sort of assume you must be a wrong 'un because their dog doesn't like you, so are entirely unapologetic about it.
Get your dog f-ing off me and my family and keep it under control. Not all of us want to be pawed or mauled when we go out for a walk, nor deal with braindead owners who don't take responsibility.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
Bottling up the German surface navy was step one in this.
People slightly overstate the partisan aspect of the US courts, particularly the Supreme Court. It's certainly true that they follow different judicial doctrines such that it's reasonable to talk about a liberal group and a conservative group. But they are actually, in general, trying to get a legally correct answer.
For example, Roberts and Kavanagh recently voted to require Alabama to redraw a Congressional map that was advantageous to the GOP but appeared in breach of the Voting Rights Act. Away from the Supreme Court, conservative, Trump appointed judges were among those to dismiss out of hand all the many misconceived cases brought by the Trump campaign following the 2020 election.
I may be wrong on this, and I know those pushing it has recruited a few constitutional lawyers who can't be airily dismissed as total cranks, but the legal argument for disqualifying Trump under the 14th amendment looks pretty weak to me, and I'm very far from convinced the three liberals will bite.
I'd argue even the Iraqis fought to defend Iraq from foreign aggression but while they have had the will they lacked the means and somethines that's how it is with aggression from the Czechs in 1968 to the Falklanders in 1982 and the Kuwaitis in 1990.
As for those beyond the screams, the deaths and the anguish of war, yes, it is more difficult. On site reporting helps to remind whose land is being invaded and who is doing the invading but I agree there's a requirement to put in simple terms what we are fighting FOR rather than simply what we are fighting AGAINST.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Even if convicted, it will probably be dismissed 6-3 though.