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?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
The situation in Ukraine seems to be one which a lot of active posters behave in a tribal way, you have to agree completely with them or else you are out of the tribe. This just prevents useful discussion of it, it is true for other areas as well. If you think in this way - complete victory or nothing, good vs evil, light vs dark... then you aren't really going to develop much real insight in to issues, or be very good at predicting what is going to happen in the world.
I think it's quite possible to have useful discussions and also nuanced opinions about Ukraine, for instance to believe that whilst Ukraine should be supported to regain all its lost territory that is unlikely to happen or be supported to that full goal by Western backers. And as such to consider what unpalatable options might crop up and what might happen.
However, it is also the case that opinions can be cloaked in nuanced or mild language, yet not be very nuanced at all when broken down to their basic points, which just mirror pro or anti talking points, dressed up better. And that deserves pointing out when it happens (some might claim it of my own input, gods forbid).
It is also the case that some elements are, on a moral level, rather straightforward. Things are not usually black and white, and I'm a firm proponent of acknowledging that. But sometimes they are black and white, and an attempt at balance can lead to false conclusions, and that should be acknowledged too.
Yes this is black and white. Right is all on one side and wrong is on the other. You don't demonstrate pragmatism or free thinking or man of the worldness by saying otherwise. You're just mistaken.
But all that means is you have to want Ukraine to win. It doesn't mean you have to predict that they will or that you have to be up for supporting them militarily come what may for as long as it takes. I find that a bit postury.
This is actually quite a good example of the tribal reaction I am describing. There are loads of things going on in the world that we may find morally repulsive and can be framed in a similarly black and white way... obvious example being the Uighurs, but an endless list of others too.
The reality here is that the situation in Ukraine can go backwards just as the situation with the Taliban went backwards. The rights and wrongs of the conflict are of little consequence to predicting what might happen. In this context it just gets annoying to be lectured continuously that 'we must keep supporting them until Russia is beaten back' with appeals to morality. Why Russia and not the taliban? Why not China?
I think most who wish to support Ukraine for as long as they wish to continue fighting, rather than urging them to settle, are most worried about moral hazard. Game theory, essentially.
I would say this is probably the dividing line within the broadly pro-Ukrainian camp.
One view is comfortable Russia can be bright to negotiate a settlement that it will either voluntarily stick to, or it can be made through diplomatic pressure to stick to. Therefore, by this logic, further bloodshed in this war is avoidable and there is a better outcome. This is the “off ramp” thinking that dominated the early days of 2022 in Western European capitals.
The other view is that peace now guarantees a worse war later. This view has zero trust in Russia to keep its word, and believes it cannot be contained diplomatically. That any settlement will be taken as a win and a chance to regroup ahead of the next invasion, cyber attack, poisoning or whatever. That Russia is a classic bully that only respects force. This is the thinking of much of Eastern Europe since 1991.
I have gone on a journey to the second of those since 2014. I was quite forgiving of Russia, enjoyed the culture, I worked with Russian colleagues and clients, visited several times. Saw Russians as simply unfortunate to live under a corrupt government. I thought Putin could be contained and managed, as indeed I still think is the case with Xi in China. After 2014 I started to sense the problem went deeper than Putin but I was still a little in denial.
It was the behaviour in Syria supporting the revolting Assad (which then made me clock just his brutal they’d been in Chechnya) and then the brazen poisonings in Salisbury and Wagner’s carrying on in Africa that made me see the Russian state itself as a uniquely poisonous criminal organisation. It was also the Salisbury poisonings that gave me that moment of clarity on Corbyn too.
These are good comments. I suppose the problem is that if you decide to go all in for a long war with Russia to avoid a worse war later, then you have to be pretty certain that you are going to win it, otherwise you lose anyway. I don't think we can have anything like that certainty at the moment. I think that is fundamentally the danger of the idea of 'backing Ukraine while they want to carry on fighting', it could be a path to just losing anyway further down the line.
There is some careful calibration I can see going on around escalation. NATO countries know they could easily defeat Russia in a conventional war and presumably the same is true of a NATO-supplied Ukraine. But as of now they’re only providing land fighting equipment - no aircraft, no naval ships (which would he practically difficult admittedly), no cruise missiles, nothing long range - because of the risks of provoking nuclear war.
The only reason Russia has not been completely crushed is its nuclear deterrent, which I suppose shows the power of nuclear deterrents.
The biggest risk leading to loss must surely be fatigue. However, I think we assume Ukraine might grow tired before Russia does because we’re used to foreign wars of Western powers that aren’t that emotionally invested in the outcome, rather than existential wars of survival which this is for Ukraine. Russia’s ambition is to delete Ukraine as a nation from the face of the planet, and make it a province of Russia.
The fatigue if it comes will come from America. That probably depends rather a lot on those US Trump v Biden opinion polls.
A lot of the analyses consider the possible changes in Russia, the US or Europe. The Ukrainians are actors in this, as well.
This reminds me of the debates around the Yugoslav Wars, where the Serbs were seen as having agency, as opposed to the Bosnians and Croats who were seen as passive victims, by the solemn writers of newspaper columns and the diplomats briefing them.
That is an excellent point.
I recall one column written after the start of the offensive that ended the war. The writer pretty much stated that the Croats and Bosnians, because they were fighting back and winning, were no longer the unambiguously Good Guys. Because “the arrogance and confident laughter” of some advancing Croat soldiers, riding on an APC, jarred his sensibilities. He preferred them as victims.
I feel they same thing would occur if the Ukrainians ever got to the position of being able to and having to fight to retake, say, Donetsk. Be as careful as they could be it'd still be a vicious city assault, with all that might come with that.
Daily Mail columnist Andrew Pierce today blasts an 'Army of Shirkers' claiming sickness benefits which British taxpayers are footing the bill for.
Mr Pierce said: 'You all know who these shirkers are, you know the families, you know where they live. You've seen then drinking their cans of beer late in the morning, fag hanging out of their mouths, they've normally got Sky Sports blaring.
'How do they pay for that? I'll tell you, through your benefits.'
I'm baffled by people on the left who recommend some kind of accommodation with Russia. Russia is literally fascist these days.
There can be no peace with fascism. It's not even an unwise choice, it's literally not available. People on the left ought to know this better than most.
There was peace with fascist Spain from 1939 to 1975, that seemed satisfactory.
The labelling of Franco's Spain as fascist is possibly problematic. I personally reject the label in that case, and I'm not alone in that.
Military conquest and constant war as a defining factor of government was lacking. It had most of the other traits: traditional macho values, central power and repression of minority or regional identity, the strong man etc. I’d say the central importance of the church and, for want of a better word culture war, is what made Spain subtly different from Mussolini’s Italy. More akin to MAGA Trumpism or the current Polish government.
There was also the fact that the actual fascists were a distinct group, attached to the regime but not at the very top of it. And indeed, often pushed to the back of the queue within the power politics of the regime.
Hungary under Horthy is a similar case, in my view.
Franco was a social reactionary at his core, I think.
Horthy provided something of a prototype for 20thC fascist regimes, though.
I am beginning to hear talk of Covid again. In the hospitality industry. Cancellations and the like. No one is sure how seriously to take it
May just be paranoia. I for one cannot go through that AGAIN
No lockdowns. No matter what. Absolutely must not do that again.
We can't afford it, it arguably didn't work after the initial - we have no idea what this is - few weeks and it is a fecking disaster long term for mental health and kids learning, country's finance and so on.
Completely agree. If it’s back we just have to endure it and carry on, as our forefathers did, through plague, war, disaster, Blitz….
No more hiding away and slowly but inexorably going mad - especially the kids. Enough
I am beginning to hear talk of Covid again. In the hospitality industry. Cancellations and the like. No one is sure how seriously to take it
May just be paranoia. I for one cannot go through that AGAIN
No lockdowns. No matter what. Absolutely must not do that again.
We can't afford it, it arguably didn't work after the initial - we have no idea what this is - few weeks and it is a fecking disaster long term for mental health and kids learning, country's finance and so on.
Lockdown was a massive infringement of liberty, and could only be justified by the most urgent of scenarios. The first one, yes, in the circumstances justified. For the rest, well, I think that is far less clear - plenty of restrictions would be reasonable, sure, but some of the decisions even at the time were of uncertain benefit, and examination will have demonstrated some of that.
And having learned lessons about it all there should be less need for a sledgehammer approach if we get a next time.
"Images of disillusioned and disgruntled British voters tearing down cameras which enforce financial penalties on motorists violating Ultra-Low Emission Zones points to the rise of the next big populist revolt in Western politics.
That’s the message from my latest polling on what ordinary people really think about the recent expansion of the Ultra-Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) in London, where the owners of non-compliant vehicles are charged £12.50 each time they drive.
While the expert class routinely tells itself voters are on board with the politics of Net Zero the reality, as I show today, is quite different. Many voters are instinctively sceptical if not outright opposed to paying for what many of them clearly see as the latest example of an elite revolution being imposed on them from above. And more than a few voice their support for the so-called ‘Blade Runners’ —the vigilantes currently tearing down ULEZ cameras across London.
The results, as I explain below, are striking. And they also raise big implications not just for the future of British politics but the evolving populist rebellion against the elite in the West more generally. What we can see, in short, are the seeds of the next big populist revolt against an elite class which looks increasingly out of touch."
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?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
The situation in Ukraine seems to be one which a lot of active posters behave in a tribal way, you have to agree completely with them or else you are out of the tribe. This just prevents useful discussion of it, it is true for other areas as well. If you think in this way - complete victory or nothing, good vs evil, light vs dark... then you aren't really going to develop much real insight in to issues, or be very good at predicting what is going to happen in the world.
I think it's quite possible to have useful discussions and also nuanced opinions about Ukraine, for instance to believe that whilst Ukraine should be supported to regain all its lost territory that is unlikely to happen or be supported to that full goal by Western backers. And as such to consider what unpalatable options might crop up and what might happen.
However, it is also the case that opinions can be cloaked in nuanced or mild language, yet not be very nuanced at all when broken down to their basic points, which just mirror pro or anti talking points, dressed up better. And that deserves pointing out when it happens (some might claim it of my own input, gods forbid).
It is also the case that some elements are, on a moral level, rather straightforward. Things are not usually black and white, and I'm a firm proponent of acknowledging that. But sometimes they are black and white, and an attempt at balance can lead to false conclusions, and that should be acknowledged too.
Yes this is black and white. Right is all on one side and wrong is on the other. You don't demonstrate pragmatism or free thinking or man of the worldness by saying otherwise. You're just mistaken.
But all that means is you have to want Ukraine to win. It doesn't mean you have to predict that they will or that you have to be up for supporting them militarily come what may for as long as it takes. I find that a bit postury.
This is actually quite a good example of the tribal reaction I am describing. There are loads of things going on in the world that we may find morally repulsive and can be framed in a similarly black and white way... obvious example being the Uighurs, but an endless list of others too.
The reality here is that the situation in Ukraine can go backwards just as the situation with the Taliban went backwards. The rights and wrongs of the conflict are of little consequence to predicting what might happen. In this context it just gets annoying to be lectured continuously that 'we must keep supporting them until Russia is beaten back' with appeals to morality. Why Russia and not the taliban? Why not China?
I think most who wish to support Ukraine for as long as they wish to continue fighting, rather than urging them to settle, are most worried about moral hazard. Game theory, essentially.
I would say this is probably the dividing line within the broadly pro-Ukrainian camp.
One view is comfortable Russia can be bright to negotiate a settlement that it will either voluntarily stick to, or it can be made through diplomatic pressure to stick to. Therefore, by this logic, further bloodshed in this war is avoidable and there is a better outcome. This is the “off ramp” thinking that dominated the early days of 2022 in Western European capitals.
The other view is that peace now guarantees a worse war later. This view has zero trust in Russia to keep its word, and believes it cannot be contained diplomatically. That any settlement will be taken as a win and a chance to regroup ahead of the next invasion, cyber attack, poisoning or whatever. That Russia is a classic bully that only respects force. This is the thinking of much of Eastern Europe since 1991.
I have gone on a journey to the second of those since 2014. I was quite forgiving of Russia, enjoyed the culture, I worked with Russian colleagues and clients, visited several times. Saw Russians as simply unfortunate to live under a corrupt government. I thought Putin could be contained and managed, as indeed I still think is the case with Xi in China. After 2014 I started to sense the problem went deeper than Putin but I was still a little in denial.
It was the behaviour in Syria supporting the revolting Assad (which then made me clock just his brutal they’d been in Chechnya) and then the brazen poisonings in Salisbury and Wagner’s carrying on in Africa that made me see the Russian state itself as a uniquely poisonous criminal organisation. It was also the Salisbury poisonings that gave me that moment of clarity on Corbyn too.
These are good comments. I suppose the problem is that if you decide to go all in for a long war with Russia to avoid a worse war later, then you have to be pretty certain that you are going to win it, otherwise you lose anyway. I don't think we can have anything like that certainty at the moment. I think that is fundamentally the danger of the idea of 'backing Ukraine while they want to carry on fighting', it could be a path to just losing anyway further down the line.
There is some careful calibration I can see going on around escalation. NATO countries know they could easily defeat Russia in a conventional war and presumably the same is true of a NATO-supplied Ukraine. But as of now they’re only providing land fighting equipment - no aircraft, no naval ships (which would he practically difficult admittedly), no cruise missiles, nothing long range - because of the risks of provoking nuclear war.
The only reason Russia has not been completely crushed is its nuclear deterrent, which I suppose shows the power of nuclear deterrents.
The biggest risk leading to loss must surely be fatigue. However, I think we assume Ukraine might grow tired before Russia does because we’re used to foreign wars of Western powers that aren’t that emotionally invested in the outcome, rather than existential wars of survival which this is for Ukraine. Russia’s ambition is to delete Ukraine as a nation from the face of the planet, and make it a province of Russia.
The fatigue if it comes will come from America. That probably depends rather a lot on those US Trump v Biden opinion polls.
Supporters of Ukraine certainly need to be thinking about a Trump presidency on the horizon. How would we deal with that? First and foremost by getting them as much support as possible NOW.
Simple, just stop Trump. There are several ways to make that happen.
Trump can stop weapons being transferred, which is bad, but an outgoing Biden administration would surely transfer tens of billions of slush fund money before the handover.
You do kind of need the actual arms.Russia has a lot of cash but struggles quite badly to get the best kit. And the US is in fact an enormously important producer of arms, and not just a wealthy uncle.
UKR is fucked if Trump wins. Yet another reason to stop him at all costs.
USA is fucked if Trump wins!
Indeed. But at least that would be self-inflicted rather than imposed as will happen to the Ukrainians.
It is about time Europe funded more of its own defence, including for Ukraine, rather than relying on the US.
Germany especially. Whether Trump wins again next year or lot sooner or later the US will elect an isolationist President again
This is probably true. I don't think any of W.Europe has the stomach for that though.
The thought of Putin's regiments marching through Paris and Berlin if Ukraine fell might concentrate minds
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?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
The situation in Ukraine seems to be one which a lot of active posters behave in a tribal way, you have to agree completely with them or else you are out of the tribe. This just prevents useful discussion of it, it is true for other areas as well. If you think in this way - complete victory or nothing, good vs evil, light vs dark... then you aren't really going to develop much real insight in to issues, or be very good at predicting what is going to happen in the world.
I think it's quite possible to have useful discussions and also nuanced opinions about Ukraine, for instance to believe that whilst Ukraine should be supported to regain all its lost territory that is unlikely to happen or be supported to that full goal by Western backers. And as such to consider what unpalatable options might crop up and what might happen.
However, it is also the case that opinions can be cloaked in nuanced or mild language, yet not be very nuanced at all when broken down to their basic points, which just mirror pro or anti talking points, dressed up better. And that deserves pointing out when it happens (some might claim it of my own input, gods forbid).
It is also the case that some elements are, on a moral level, rather straightforward. Things are not usually black and white, and I'm a firm proponent of acknowledging that. But sometimes they are black and white, and an attempt at balance can lead to false conclusions, and that should be acknowledged too.
Yes this is black and white. Right is all on one side and wrong is on the other. You don't demonstrate pragmatism or free thinking or man of the worldness by saying otherwise. You're just mistaken.
But all that means is you have to want Ukraine to win. It doesn't mean you have to predict that they will or that you have to be up for supporting them militarily come what may for as long as it takes. I find that a bit postury.
This is actually quite a good example of the tribal reaction I am describing. There are loads of things going on in the world that we may find morally repulsive and can be framed in a similarly black and white way... obvious example being the Uighurs, but an endless list of others too.
The reality here is that the situation in Ukraine can go backwards just as the situation with the Taliban went backwards. The rights and wrongs of the conflict are of little consequence to predicting what might happen. In this context it just gets annoying to be lectured continuously that 'we must keep supporting them until Russia is beaten back' with appeals to morality. Why Russia and not the taliban? Why not China?
I think most who wish to support Ukraine for as long as they wish to continue fighting, rather than urging them to settle, are most worried about moral hazard. Game theory, essentially.
I would say this is probably the dividing line within the broadly pro-Ukrainian camp.
One view is comfortable Russia can be bright to negotiate a settlement that it will either voluntarily stick to, or it can be made through diplomatic pressure to stick to. Therefore, by this logic, further bloodshed in this war is avoidable and there is a better outcome. This is the “off ramp” thinking that dominated the early days of 2022 in Western European capitals.
The other view is that peace now guarantees a worse war later. This view has zero trust in Russia to keep its word, and believes it cannot be contained diplomatically. That any settlement will be taken as a win and a chance to regroup ahead of the next invasion, cyber attack, poisoning or whatever. That Russia is a classic bully that only respects force. This is the thinking of much of Eastern Europe since 1991.
I have gone on a journey to the second of those since 2014. I was quite forgiving of Russia, enjoyed the culture, I worked with Russian colleagues and clients, visited several times. Saw Russians as simply unfortunate to live under a corrupt government. I thought Putin could be contained and managed, as indeed I still think is the case with Xi in China. After 2014 I started to sense the problem went deeper than Putin but I was still a little in denial.
It was the behaviour in Syria supporting the revolting Assad (which then made me clock just his brutal they’d been in Chechnya) and then the brazen poisonings in Salisbury and Wagner’s carrying on in Africa that made me see the Russian state itself as a uniquely poisonous criminal organisation. It was also the Salisbury poisonings that gave me that moment of clarity on Corbyn too.
These are good comments. I suppose the problem is that if you decide to go all in for a long war with Russia to avoid a worse war later, then you have to be pretty certain that you are going to win it, otherwise you lose anyway. I don't think we can have anything like that certainty at the moment. I think that is fundamentally the danger of the idea of 'backing Ukraine while they want to carry on fighting', it could be a path to just losing anyway further down the line.
There is some careful calibration I can see going on around escalation. NATO countries know they could easily defeat Russia in a conventional war and presumably the same is true of a NATO-supplied Ukraine. But as of now they’re only providing land fighting equipment - no aircraft, no naval ships (which would he practically difficult admittedly), no cruise missiles, nothing long range - because of the risks of provoking nuclear war.
The only reason Russia has not been completely crushed is its nuclear deterrent, which I suppose shows the power of nuclear deterrents.
The biggest risk leading to loss must surely be fatigue. However, I think we assume Ukraine might grow tired before Russia does because we’re used to foreign wars of Western powers that aren’t that emotionally invested in the outcome, rather than existential wars of survival which this is for Ukraine. Russia’s ambition is to delete Ukraine as a nation from the face of the planet, and make it a province of Russia.
The fatigue if it comes will come from America. That probably depends rather a lot on those US Trump v Biden opinion polls.
Supporters of Ukraine certainly need to be thinking about a Trump presidency on the horizon. How would we deal with that? First and foremost by getting them as much support as possible NOW.
Simple, just stop Trump. There are several ways to make that happen.
Trump can stop weapons being transferred, which is bad, but an outgoing Biden administration would surely transfer tens of billions of slush fund money before the handover.
You do kind of need the actual arms.Russia has a lot of cash but struggles quite badly to get the best kit. And the US is in fact an enormously important producer of arms, and not just a wealthy uncle.
UKR is fucked if Trump wins. Yet another reason to stop him at all costs.
USA is fucked if Trump wins!
Indeed. But at least that would be self-inflicted rather than imposed as will happen to the Ukrainians.
It is about time Europe funded more of its own defence, including for Ukraine, rather than relying on the US.
Germany especially. Whether Trump wins again next year or lot sooner or later the US will elect an isolationist President again
This is probably true. I don't think any of W.Europe has the stomach for that though.
The thought of Putin's regiments marching through Paris and Berlin if Ukraine fell might concentrate minds
I am beginning to hear talk of Covid again. In the hospitality industry. Cancellations and the like. No one is sure how seriously to take it
May just be paranoia. I for one cannot go through that AGAIN
No lockdowns. No matter what. Absolutely must not do that again.
We can't afford it, it arguably didn't work after the initial - we have no idea what this is - few weeks and it is a fecking disaster long term for mental health and kids learning, country's finance and so on.
Completely agree. If it’s back we just have to endure it and carry on, as our forefathers did, through plague, war, disaster, Blitz….
No more hiding away and slowly but inexorably going mad - especially the kids. Enough
Yep.
Sweden.
The Ukrainians manage to have proper lives - with love and laughter and tears and joy and sadness - even as they sacrifice tens of thousands on the battlefield. We can cope with a Particularly Severe Flu
No more furloughs, no more masks, no more staying home shivering in fear
I am beginning to hear talk of Covid again. In the hospitality industry. Cancellations and the like. No one is sure how seriously to take it
May just be paranoia. I for one cannot go through that AGAIN
No lockdowns. No matter what. Absolutely must not do that again.
We can't afford it, it arguably didn't work after the initial - we have no idea what this is - few weeks and it is a fecking disaster long term for mental health and kids learning, country's finance and so on.
Lockdown was a massive infringement of liberty, and could only be justified by the most urgent of scenarios. The first one, yes, in the circumstances justified. For the rest, well, I think that is far less clear - plenty of restrictions would be reasonable, sure, but some of the decisions even at the time were of uncertain benefit, and examination will have demonstrated some of that.
And having learned lessons about it all there should be less need for a sledgehammer approach if we get a next time.
A lot of it was off the wall bonkers frankly with police arresting people taking a walk with a coffee in hand and children's play grounds roped and people sitting alone at funerals.
"Images of disillusioned and disgruntled British voters tearing down cameras which enforce financial penalties on motorists violating Ultra-Low Emission Zones points to the rise of the next big populist revolt in Western politics.
That’s the message from my latest polling on what ordinary people really think about the recent expansion of the Ultra-Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) in London, where the owners of non-compliant vehicles are charged £12.50 each time they drive.
While the expert class routinely tells itself voters are on board with the politics of Net Zero the reality, as I show today, is quite different. Many voters are instinctively sceptical if not outright opposed to paying for what many of them clearly see as the latest example of an elite revolution being imposed on them from above. And more than a few voice their support for the so-called ‘Blade Runners’ —the vigilantes currently tearing down ULEZ cameras across London.
The results, as I explain below, are striking. And they also raise big implications not just for the future of British politics but the evolving populist rebellion against the elite in the West more generally. What we can see, in short, are the seeds of the next big populist revolt against an elite class which looks increasingly out of touch."
Why do you follow this clown around? You do realise that the guy is a laughing stock?
I am beginning to hear talk of Covid again. In the hospitality industry. Cancellations and the like. No one is sure how seriously to take it
May just be paranoia. I for one cannot go through that AGAIN
No lockdowns. No matter what. Absolutely must not do that again.
We can't afford it, it arguably didn't work after the initial - we have no idea what this is - few weeks and it is a fecking disaster long term for mental health and kids learning, country's finance and so on.
Completely agree. If it’s back we just have to endure it and carry on, as our forefathers did, through plague, war, disaster, Blitz….
No more hiding away and slowly but inexorably going mad - especially the kids. Enough
Yep.
Sweden.
The Ukrainians manage to have proper lives - with love and laughter and tears and joy and sadness - even as they sacrifice tens of thousands on the battlefield. We can cope with a Particularly Severe Flu
No more furloughs, no more masks, no more staying home shivering in fear
I dont have a problem with masks but not forced on kids. And I support the Pagel and co's campaign for better ventilation systems in places like schools. Even if it is for the fire next time.
"The parallels between Argentina and Britain’s inept political class Over the past few decades, both countries have experienced near financial catastrophe at the hands of reckless leaders. By John Gray"
I am beginning to hear talk of Covid again. In the hospitality industry. Cancellations and the like. No one is sure how seriously to take it
May just be paranoia. I for one cannot go through that AGAIN
No lockdowns. No matter what. Absolutely must not do that again.
We can't afford it, it arguably didn't work after the initial - we have no idea what this is - few weeks and it is a fecking disaster long term for mental health and kids learning, country's finance and so on.
Completely agree. If it’s back we just have to endure it and carry on, as our forefathers did, through plague, war, disaster, Blitz….
No more hiding away and slowly but inexorably going mad - especially the kids. Enough
Yep.
Sweden.
The Ukrainians manage to have proper lives - with love and laughter and tears and joy and sadness - even as they sacrifice tens of thousands on the battlefield. We can cope with a Particularly Severe Flu
No more furloughs, no more masks, no more staying home shivering in fear
And I support the Pagel and co's campaign for better ventilation systems in places like schools.
Just making them so they won't collapse is apparently a tall order!
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?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
The situation in Ukraine seems to be one which a lot of active posters behave in a tribal way, you have to agree completely with them or else you are out of the tribe. This just prevents useful discussion of it, it is true for other areas as well. If you think in this way - complete victory or nothing, good vs evil, light vs dark... then you aren't really going to develop much real insight in to issues, or be very good at predicting what is going to happen in the world.
I think it's quite possible to have useful discussions and also nuanced opinions about Ukraine, for instance to believe that whilst Ukraine should be supported to regain all its lost territory that is unlikely to happen or be supported to that full goal by Western backers. And as such to consider what unpalatable options might crop up and what might happen.
However, it is also the case that opinions can be cloaked in nuanced or mild language, yet not be very nuanced at all when broken down to their basic points, which just mirror pro or anti talking points, dressed up better. And that deserves pointing out when it happens (some might claim it of my own input, gods forbid).
It is also the case that some elements are, on a moral level, rather straightforward. Things are not usually black and white, and I'm a firm proponent of acknowledging that. But sometimes they are black and white, and an attempt at balance can lead to false conclusions, and that should be acknowledged too.
Yes this is black and white. Right is all on one side and wrong is on the other. You don't demonstrate pragmatism or free thinking or man of the worldness by saying otherwise. You're just mistaken.
But all that means is you have to want Ukraine to win. It doesn't mean you have to predict that they will or that you have to be up for supporting them militarily come what may for as long as it takes. I find that a bit postury.
This is actually quite a good example of the tribal reaction I am describing. There are loads of things going on in the world that we may find morally repulsive and can be framed in a similarly black and white way... obvious example being the Uighurs, but an endless list of others too.
The reality here is that the situation in Ukraine can go backwards just as the situation with the Taliban went backwards. The rights and wrongs of the conflict are of little consequence to predicting what might happen. In this context it just gets annoying to be lectured continuously that 'we must keep supporting them until Russia is beaten back' with appeals to morality. Why Russia and not the taliban? Why not China?
I think most who wish to support Ukraine for as long as they wish to continue fighting, rather than urging them to settle, are most worried about moral hazard. Game theory, essentially.
I would say this is probably the dividing line within the broadly pro-Ukrainian camp.
One view is comfortable Russia can be bright to negotiate a settlement that it will either voluntarily stick to, or it can be made through diplomatic pressure to stick to. Therefore, by this logic, further bloodshed in this war is avoidable and there is a better outcome. This is the “off ramp” thinking that dominated the early days of 2022 in Western European capitals.
The other view is that peace now guarantees a worse war later. This view has zero trust in Russia to keep its word, and believes it cannot be contained diplomatically. That any settlement will be taken as a win and a chance to regroup ahead of the next invasion, cyber attack, poisoning or whatever. That Russia is a classic bully that only respects force. This is the thinking of much of Eastern Europe since 1991.
I have gone on a journey to the second of those since 2014. I was quite forgiving of Russia, enjoyed the culture, I worked with Russian colleagues and clients, visited several times. Saw Russians as simply unfortunate to live under a corrupt government. I thought Putin could be contained and managed, as indeed I still think is the case with Xi in China. After 2014 I started to sense the problem went deeper than Putin but I was still a little in denial.
It was the behaviour in Syria supporting the revolting Assad (which then made me clock just his brutal they’d been in Chechnya) and then the brazen poisonings in Salisbury and Wagner’s carrying on in Africa that made me see the Russian state itself as a uniquely poisonous criminal organisation. It was also the Salisbury poisonings that gave me that moment of clarity on Corbyn too.
These are good comments. I suppose the problem is that if you decide to go all in for a long war with Russia to avoid a worse war later, then you have to be pretty certain that you are going to win it, otherwise you lose anyway. I don't think we can have anything like that certainty at the moment. I think that is fundamentally the danger of the idea of 'backing Ukraine while they want to carry on fighting', it could be a path to just losing anyway further down the line.
There is some careful calibration I can see going on around escalation. NATO countries know they could easily defeat Russia in a conventional war and presumably the same is true of a NATO-supplied Ukraine. But as of now they’re only providing land fighting equipment - no aircraft, no naval ships (which would he practically difficult admittedly), no cruise missiles, nothing long range - because of the risks of provoking nuclear war.
The only reason Russia has not been completely crushed is its nuclear deterrent, which I suppose shows the power of nuclear deterrents.
The biggest risk leading to loss must surely be fatigue. However, I think we assume Ukraine might grow tired before Russia does because we’re used to foreign wars of Western powers that aren’t that emotionally invested in the outcome, rather than existential wars of survival which this is for Ukraine. Russia’s ambition is to delete Ukraine as a nation from the face of the planet, and make it a province of Russia.
The fatigue if it comes will come from America. That probably depends rather a lot on those US Trump v Biden opinion polls.
Supporters of Ukraine certainly need to be thinking about a Trump presidency on the horizon. How would we deal with that? First and foremost by getting them as much support as possible NOW.
Simple, just stop Trump. There are several ways to make that happen.
Trump can stop weapons being transferred, which is bad, but an outgoing Biden administration would surely transfer tens of billions of slush fund money before the handover.
You do kind of need the actual arms.Russia has a lot of cash but struggles quite badly to get the best kit. And the US is in fact an enormously important producer of arms, and not just a wealthy uncle.
UKR is fucked if Trump wins. Yet another reason to stop him at all costs.
USA is fucked if Trump wins!
Indeed. But at least that would be self-inflicted rather than imposed as will happen to the Ukrainians.
It is about time Europe funded more of its own defence, including for Ukraine, rather than relying on the US.
Germany especially. Whether Trump wins again next year or lot sooner or later the US will elect an isolationist President again
This is probably true. I don't think any of W.Europe has the stomach for that though.
The thought of Putin's regiments marching through Paris and Berlin if Ukraine fell might concentrate minds
Right next door it has. I'm not sure it has wider afield.
"Images of disillusioned and disgruntled British voters tearing down cameras which enforce financial penalties on motorists violating Ultra-Low Emission Zones points to the rise of the next big populist revolt in Western politics.
That’s the message from my latest polling on what ordinary people really think about the recent expansion of the Ultra-Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) in London, where the owners of non-compliant vehicles are charged £12.50 each time they drive.
While the expert class routinely tells itself voters are on board with the politics of Net Zero the reality, as I show today, is quite different. Many voters are instinctively sceptical if not outright opposed to paying for what many of them clearly see as the latest example of an elite revolution being imposed on them from above. And more than a few voice their support for the so-called ‘Blade Runners’ —the vigilantes currently tearing down ULEZ cameras across London.
The results, as I explain below, are striking. And they also raise big implications not just for the future of British politics but the evolving populist rebellion against the elite in the West more generally. What we can see, in short, are the seeds of the next big populist revolt against an elite class which looks increasingly out of touch."
Why do you follow this clown around? You do realise that the guy is a laughing stock?
Poundshop Carl Schmitt who ended up handmaiden for a philandering clown.
NYT ($) - After Primary, Rhode Island Looks Set to Have Its First Black Member of Congress
Gabriel Amo, moderate Democrat who served in the Obama and Biden administrations, won a special House primary to succeed Representative David N. Cicilline in the deep-blue state.
SSI - Amo who is of Ghanaian-Liberian heritage, is winning nomination with 32.4% of votes cast in Democratic primary, versus 24.9% for progressive former state representative David Regunberg, 13.9% for state senator Sandra Matos and 8.0% for Lieutenant Gov. Sabina Matos who started the race as frontrunner but who tanked after scandal about fraudulent signatures submitted on her behalf to get her on the ballot; she still made the ballot but voters were obviously NOT impressed.
Excellent poll for Scottish Labour from Redfield Wilton.
Indeed. Well it's pretty obvious Labour are going to be in power after the next election, either with a majority or in a coalition, so let's get on with it as soon as possible. No point in wasting another 15 months. I hope Rishi calls an election soon.
Does anyone else think we ought to get the next election out of the way as soon as possible, instead of dragging this out for another 12 or 15 months? (I'd be saying this even if I hadn't put a bet on an election this year).
"When should Rishi Sunak call a general election? If we assume the Conservatives can’t recover, they have little to lose by calling a vote early. By Ben Walker"
Does anyone else think we ought to get the next election out of the way as soon as possible, instead of dragging this out for another 12 or 15 months? (I'd be saying this even if I hadn't put a bet on an election this year).
Ask the Tory MPs. Everyone else's opinion is irrelevant.
Fascism is a slippery bastard, because at its core it's comfortable with internal contradiction and anti-intellectualism. It's less a system of thought and more a pattern of actions.
If we disagree about this or that regime having the label, it's not the end of the world.
There's a touch of 'you know it when you see it' about it. Bit like racism or misogyny. Often the straining for a definition fails the cost/benefit test, and sometimes even hinders understanding.
If anything, it's the opposite. "Fascist" is now overused and has become a term used to describe anything disagreeable to the speaker/writer. It hinders understanding rather than helps it.
Comments
Daily Mail columnist Andrew Pierce today blasts an 'Army of Shirkers' claiming sickness benefits which British taxpayers are footing the bill for.
Mr Pierce said: 'You all know who these shirkers are, you know the families, you know where they live. You've seen then drinking their cans of beer late in the morning, fag hanging out of their mouths, they've normally got Sky Sports blaring.
'How do they pay for that? I'll tell you, through your benefits.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12488513/ANDREW-PIERCE-British-taxpayers-paying-army-shirkers-unless-tough-sickness-benefit-scroungers.html
Sweden.
And having learned lessons about it all there should be less need for a sledgehammer approach if we get a next time.
https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/the-next-big-populist-revolt
"Images of disillusioned and disgruntled British voters tearing down cameras which enforce financial penalties on motorists violating Ultra-Low Emission Zones points to the rise of the next big populist revolt in Western politics.
That’s the message from my latest polling on what ordinary people really think about the recent expansion of the Ultra-Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) in London, where the owners of non-compliant vehicles are charged £12.50 each time they drive.
While the expert class routinely tells itself voters are on board with the politics of Net Zero the reality, as I show today, is quite different. Many voters are instinctively sceptical if not outright opposed to paying for what many of them clearly see as the latest example of an elite revolution being imposed on them from above. And more than a few voice their support for the so-called ‘Blade Runners’ —the vigilantes currently tearing down ULEZ cameras across London.
The results, as I explain below, are striking. And they also raise big implications not just for the future of British politics but the evolving populist rebellion against the elite in the West more generally. What we can see, in short, are the seeds of the next big populist revolt against an elite class which looks increasingly out of touch."
No more furloughs, no more masks, no more staying home shivering in fear
Over the past few decades, both countries have experienced near financial catastrophe at the hands of reckless leaders.
By John Gray"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2023/09/argentina-britain-political-class-john-gray
Gabriel Amo, moderate Democrat who served in the Obama and Biden administrations, won a special House primary to succeed Representative David N. Cicilline in the deep-blue state.
SSI - Amo who is of Ghanaian-Liberian heritage, is winning nomination with 32.4% of votes cast in Democratic primary, versus 24.9% for progressive former state representative David Regunberg, 13.9% for state senator Sandra Matos and 8.0% for Lieutenant Gov. Sabina Matos who started the race as frontrunner but who tanked after scandal about fraudulent signatures submitted on her behalf to get her on the ballot; she still made the ballot but voters were obviously NOT impressed.
The US Senate minority leader also said he has no plans to step down from leadership amid questions over his health
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1699561364224659469
"When should Rishi Sunak call a general election?
If we assume the Conservatives can’t recover, they have little to lose by calling a vote early.
By Ben Walker"
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2023/08/when-should-rishi-sunak-call-a-general-election
Institute for Fiscal Studies finds stark disparities in earnings based on geography and ethnicity
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/07/social-mobility-uk-worst-50-years-report-finds
Everyone else's opinion is irrelevant.