Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

It’s not you babe, it’s me – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited November 2023 in General
imageIt’s not you babe, it’s me – politicalbetting.com

Today’s Sunday Times has this interesting analogy from Team Sunak about the next general election

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,358
    edited November 2023
    You haven't lived unless you've been named co-respondent three times before your 28th birthday.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    You haven't lived unless you've been named co-respondent three times before your 28th birthday.

    Sunil and I haven't lived?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189
    Fourth like Spurs.
  • Options

    You haven't lived unless you've been named co-respondent three times before your 28th birthday.

    Possibly a reference to King Edward VII?

    Anyway, I thought they don't have co-respondents in these enlightened times. You don't even get a weekend in Brighton with a tart and a photographer.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    Does Russia want an armistice?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,162
    US Betting Alert: If anyone has a care you can back Nikki Haley for the GOP nomination @ 13 and lay her at the exact same price (13) for the WH.

    This looks like a 'Flat v Nice Win' transaction (or Win Win with appropriate staking) to me unless I'm missing something?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    Does Russia want an armistice?
    The people certainly do - in polls

    Putin has an election coming up
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    Leo Varadkar has got a community note for describing a released hostage as “found” after being “lost”.

    https://x.com/leovaradkar/status/1728535065242612184
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,983
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    Does Russia want an armistice?
    Not yet. If Ukraine starts to crack and the Western Alliance of Super Friends starts to look a bit wobbly then they have more to gain by buggering on. The number of casualties has very little, if any, bearing on the thinking.

    Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears, as the film title has it.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    edited November 2023

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    That you can see!

    I mean I've picked boogers with more intelligence than you.

    You're a fucking appeaser, that clouds your judgment.

    Now go watch Threads again you ludicrous soaked up popinjay.
    Apart from anything else, this is embarrassingly bad prose with no rhythm or verbal invention
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 1,936
    edited November 2023
    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
  • Options
    Leon said:




    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    That you can see!

    I mean I've picked boogers with more intelligence than you.

    You're a fucking appeaser, that clouds your judgment.

    Now go watch Threads again you ludicrous soaked up popinjay.
    Apart from anything else, this is embarrassingly bad prose with no rhythm or verbal invention
    I used simple words that you might understand.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    But the Ukrainians themselves are split. On one side you have the “messianic” Zekensky who still thinks Ukraine can win - even retaking Crimea - on the other hand you have other senior Ukrainians who are way more downbeat and realise Armistice is an option

    Who do we support?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    Does Russia want an armistice?
    Not yet. If Ukraine starts to crack and the Western Alliance of Super Friends starts to look a bit wobbly then they have more to gain by buggering on. The number of casualties has very little, if any, bearing on the thinking.

    Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears, as the film title has it.
    In which case, discussion about an armistice is a pointless irrelevance.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    PURGE!
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Armistice is where we are headed


    “Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”

    https://x.com/foreignaffairs/status/1727024100457980262?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,939
    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    edited November 2023
    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    If Russia is certain to win, and don’t care about losses, why would they agree to a ceasefire?
  • Options
    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    With all due respect to the soldier, I don’t think that’s correct.

    Russian mentality is inherited from Soviet times. Crucially, the latter emphasised raw numbers than the state the equipment was in - maintenance was extremely low down the list of priorities as the best human / industrial resources were devoted to production.

    Much Russian equipment - although simple and therefore easy to repair / replace compared with western equipment - is still likely to be in a shoddy state. After nearly two years, a lot would have been ground down.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Thanks to all for the discussion on the last thread. REFUK voters and the Undecided are key players in the next GE.

    Though I do suspect that attributing the Undecided to the Tories is an error similar to attributing the REFUK voters.

    Time to do some more gardening before the light goes, but rather chilly outside.

    It was a pleasure to publish your thread.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    If Russia is certain to win, and don’t care about losses, why would they agree to a ceasefire?
    Because Putin is sensitive to Russian public opinion and Russians want the war over

    Sure he can grind on and on, but then he risks losing the people, and even autocrats hate that

    He can just about sell the war, as it stands, as a victory
  • Options
    Leon said:

    PURGE!

    Election Year!
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    You haven't lived unless you've been named co-respondent three times before your 28th birthday.

    Sunil and I haven't lived?
    We certainly haven't lived together :lol:
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    Indeed. I fear too many people think of Russia as still being a world superpower; perhaps third now, with the rise of China.

    In reality, in terms of GDP, they are 11th, behind Canada and just in front of Mexico. Russia may be a geographically massive country, but economically it is a middle-ranker. I can see this getting worse with the effects of the war, and problems will occur as more treasure gets diverted to the war effort.

    And it did not have to be like this. Russia has had twenty years of good times due to its resources; twenty years that Putin and his crones have utterly wasted.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    If Russia is certain to win, and don’t care about losses, why would they agree to a ceasefire?
    Because Putin is sensitive to Russian public opinion and Russians want the war over

    Sure he can grind on and on, but then he risks losing the people, and even autocrats hate that

    He can just about sell the war, as it stands, as a victory
    He has backed himself into a corner over that. Russia have claimed (and created laws to incorporate into Russia) vast tracts of Ukrainian land. Much of that - e.g. Crimea - they currently control. But vast swathes of other territories, such as Kherson, are under Ukrainian control. It was stupid of them to put the line where they did, as it makes it harder to claim a 'victory' if you haven't got all the territory that is now, by law, mother Russia.

    And that makes it likely that Russia's position was that all those regions will have to come to them under any peace deal. Which means Ukraine would have to cede even more land to them. Something that makes a 'peace' deal more unlikely.
  • Options
    Well done to @Cyclefree for marching.

    60,000 isn't bad. Not bad at all.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67537351
  • Options
    Surge in knighthoods doled out to sitting Tory MPs sparks fresh 'cronyism' row
    Analysis found an eightfold increase in the number of knighthoods or damehoods awarded to sitting MPs since the Conservatives came to power in 2010 - with two thirds handed to serving Tories

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/surge-knighthoods-doled-out-sitting-31530662
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    The crucial thing here is that China has got Russia’s back. I suspect China - the world’s largest industrial and trading economy - is quietly supplying Russia via proxies like Iran and North Korea

    Hence Russia somehow never running out of drones and missiles, despite us being told this was imminent 18 months ago

    With China as a backup, Russia is fine. China won’t let Putin lose. Ukraine can’t win. Them’s the facts

    I don’t like it any more than most PBers but ignoring reality is dumb

    But this is not a defeat for the west. It is a bloody score draw. Russia has gained some territory but taken a terrible mauling, united NATO, lost Nordstream, lost many young emigrants, lost 300k dead, and will now see NATO defence spending surge

    PM Starmer will have the tough task of explaining to UK voters why defence must take money from the NHS and pensioners

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994

    Well done to @Cyclefree for marching.

    60,000 isn't bad. Not bad at all.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67537351

    Indeed. Bravo @Cyclefree
  • Options
    EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    Well done to @Cyclefree for marching.

    60,000 isn't bad. Not bad at all.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67537351

    105,000, according the organisers about half an hour ago.
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,939

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    With all due respect to the soldier, I don’t think that’s correct.

    Russian mentality is inherited from Soviet times. Crucially, the latter emphasised raw numbers than the state the equipment was in - maintenance was extremely low down the list of priorities as the best human / industrial resources were devoted to production.

    Much Russian equipment - although simple and therefore easy to repair / replace compared with western equipment - is still likely to be in a shoddy state. After nearly two years, a lot would have been ground down.
    I suspect it's probably as much a reflection on the person who told me that's background as anything else -- somewhat senior during the cold war, so views coloured by that. I think his point was that the Russians were prepared to devote 100% of their resources to winning, while the west is only willing to give Ukraine scraps off the table.

    I think if the west was willing to commit more resources to Ukraine, the war would be winnable. That or we'd end up in WWIII / threads timeline.
  • Options

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    A lot of Russian equipment in reserve is actually unusable because of maintenance, training etc issues.

    Russian - effectively Soviet - strategy has always depended on the numbers game - ‘we have x amount, much more than you and we can go on for longer’

    The problem is Ukraine called their bluff and that reserve is being run down quickly.

    BTW, I think the Biden Administration is now more worried a collapsed / fundamentally weakened Russia would be prone to Chinese occupation / effective control. The most common ‘future war’ strategy in military history / course studies is China invading Russia
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    The crucial thing here is that China has got Russia’s back. I suspect China - the world’s largest industrial and trading economy - is quietly supplying Russia via proxies like Iran and North Korea

    Hence Russia somehow never running out of drones and missiles, despite us being told this was imminent 18 months ago

    With China as a backup, Russia is fine. China won’t let Putin lose. Ukraine can’t win. Them’s the facts

    I don’t like it any more than most PBers but ignoring reality is dumb

    But this is not a defeat for the west. It is a bloody score draw. Russia has gained some territory but taken a terrible mauling, united NATO, lost Nordstream, lost many young emigrants, lost 300k dead, and will now see NATO defence spending surge

    PM Starmer will have the tough task of explaining to UK voters why defence must take money from the NHS and pensioners

    Except that defence spending in the UK is still fraction of what is spent on the NHS and pensioners.

    And that all that has shown up in the Russian war effort in Ukraine is Iranian drones and North Korean artillery shells. No Chinese weapons.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    US Betting Alert: If anyone has a care you can back Nikki Haley for the GOP nomination @ 13 and lay her at the exact same price (13) for the WH.

    This looks like a 'Flat v Nice Win' transaction (or Win Win with appropriate staking) to me unless I'm missing something?

    Thanks.

    But looks to have gone. Now 10.5
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    The crucial thing here is that China has got Russia’s back. I suspect China - the world’s largest industrial and trading economy - is quietly supplying Russia via proxies like Iran and North Korea

    Hence Russia somehow never running out of drones and missiles, despite us being told this was imminent 18 months ago

    With China as a backup, Russia is fine. China won’t let Putin lose. Ukraine can’t win. Them’s the facts

    I don’t like it any more than most PBers but ignoring reality is dumb

    But this is not a defeat for the west. It is a bloody score draw. Russia has gained some territory but taken a terrible mauling, united NATO, lost Nordstream, lost many young emigrants, lost 300k dead, and will now see NATO defence spending surge

    PM Starmer will have the tough task of explaining to UK voters why defence must take money from the NHS and pensioners

    Except that defence spending in the UK is still fraction of what is spent on the NHS and pensioners.

    And that all that has shown up in the Russian war effort in Ukraine is Iranian drones and North Korean artillery shells. No Chinese weapons.
    Aww. Bless your naivety
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,506

    You haven't lived unless you've been named co-respondent three times before your 28th birthday.

    Unless I have got the recent law wrong, the Divorce Act of 2020, which institutes no fault divorce, has entirely done away with co-respondents. It is not yet clear what happens to co-respondent shoes, though obvs they still remain unacceptable in decent company.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    Indeed. I fear too many people think of Russia as still being a world superpower; perhaps third now, with the rise of China.

    In reality, in terms of GDP, they are 11th, behind Canada and just in front of Mexico. Russia may be a geographically massive country, but economically it is a middle-ranker. I can see this getting worse with the effects of the war, and problems will occur as more treasure gets diverted to the war effort.

    And it did not have to be like this. Russia has had twenty years of good times due to its resources; twenty years that Putin and his crones have utterly wasted.
    Neither should we ignore the demographic challenge that Russia faces. Russia is not the place with an inexhaustible number of young men that it was in the 1930s. Low fertility, alcoholism, and emigration have hit it hard particularly in core Russian areas.

    I note that recently Russia claimed to be increasing its military budget to 4% of GDP. That seems rather low for a country engaged in conflict, particularly a country only 11th in the world GDP table. It may well be the figures are a fiction and the reality much higher but that makes a long war unsustainable, while the lower figure would mean that a revitalised Russian military with modern equipment is just not going to happen.

    Trench based warfare with mines and barbed wire can be quite low tech, but it also means a lack of offensive capability.
  • Options
    algarkirk said:

    You haven't lived unless you've been named co-respondent three times before your 28th birthday.

    Unless I have got the recent law wrong, the Divorce Act of 2020, which institutes no fault divorce, has entirely done away with co-respondents. It is not yet clear what happens to co-respondent shoes, though obvs they still remain unacceptable in decent company.
    I was talking pre 2020.

    My mother saw one of those documents, I was sure she was going to keel over in shame.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    With all due respect to the soldier, I don’t think that’s correct.

    Russian mentality is inherited from Soviet times. Crucially, the latter emphasised raw numbers than the state the equipment was in - maintenance was extremely low down the list of priorities as the best human / industrial resources were devoted to production.

    Much Russian equipment - although simple and therefore easy to repair / replace compared with western equipment - is still likely to be in a shoddy state. After nearly two years, a lot would have been ground down.
    I suspect it's probably as much a reflection on the person who told me that's background as anything else -- somewhat senior during the cold war, so views coloured by that. I think his point was that the Russians were prepared to devote 100% of their resources to winning, while the west is only willing to give Ukraine scraps off the table.

    I think if the west was willing to commit more resources to Ukraine, the war would be winnable. That or we'd end up in WWIII / threads timeline.
    Another thing to note is that manpower is not as readily available as it was in WW2. Before WW2, the vast majority of Russian men worked in agriculture. This meant Russia had a massive reserve of manpower it could exploit, especially when getting millions of tonnes of food aid from the other allies. And it wasn't as if old Joe hadn't starved 'his' people in recent years, was it?

    Around 75% of Russians worked in agriculture in 1897. In 1940, it was 54%. At the same time in the UK, it was about 6%. Today in Russia, it is about 5.8%. The rest of the population will be in other occupations, many of which are also rather important to the economy and/or war effort. Stalin could squeeze the agricultural sector for manpower. It is much harder for Putin to squeeze other areas of the workforce, especially amongst the highly-skilled.

    https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/agriculture1996.pdf
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1005657/share-working-population-agriculture-europe-1930-1980/
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 1,936
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    The crucial thing here is that China has got Russia’s back. I suspect China - the world’s largest industrial and trading economy - is quietly supplying Russia via proxies like Iran and North Korea

    Hence Russia somehow never running out of drones and missiles, despite us being told this was imminent 18 months ago

    With China as a backup, Russia is fine. China won’t let Putin lose. Ukraine can’t win. Them’s the facts

    I don’t like it any more than most PBers but ignoring reality is dumb

    But this is not a defeat for the west. It is a bloody score draw. Russia has gained some territory but taken a terrible mauling, united NATO, lost Nordstream, lost many young emigrants, lost 300k dead, and will now see NATO defence spending surge

    PM Starmer will have the tough task of explaining to UK voters why defence must take money from the NHS and pensioners

    One of the problems with the calls for armistice is that Russia has explicitly & very publicly claimed the entirety of the four regions of Ukraine that it partially held as Russian territory. In reality they haven’t even managed to hold the entirety of the Donbas. Hence the massive attacks in the north to try and eke out some territorial advances there.

    To cede an armistice now means rowing back on those territorial claims that were made with great fanfare: It’s entirely possible that Putin has backed himself into a corner where the internal political calculus for him means that continuing the battle in Ukraine no matter the cost is the only way he can hold on to power. In which case no armistice is possible & the Russians are going to keep attacking until they run out of materiel regardless of whether we support Ukraine or not.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    The crucial thing here is that China has got Russia’s back. I suspect China - the world’s largest industrial and trading economy - is quietly supplying Russia via proxies like Iran and North Korea

    Hence Russia somehow never running out of drones and missiles, despite us being told this was imminent 18 months ago

    With China as a backup, Russia is fine. China won’t let Putin lose. Ukraine can’t win. Them’s the facts

    I don’t like it any more than most PBers but ignoring reality is dumb

    But this is not a defeat for the west. It is a bloody score draw. Russia has gained some territory but taken a terrible mauling, united NATO, lost Nordstream, lost many young emigrants, lost 300k dead, and will now see NATO defence spending surge

    PM Starmer will have the tough task of explaining to UK voters why defence must take money from the NHS and pensioners

    Except that defence spending in the UK is still fraction of what is spent on the NHS and pensioners.

    And that all that has shown up in the Russian war effort in Ukraine is Iranian drones and North Korean artillery shells. No Chinese weapons.
    “China has sent tens of thousands of shipments to Russian weapons firms since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the Telegraph reported on Aug. 19.

    The Telegraph's investigation found that China has helped supply the Russian military with helicopters, drones, optical sights, and essential raw materials. Trade between Moscow and Beijing is on track to reach a record high this year of over $200 billion.”

    https://kyivindependent.com/telegraph-china-arms-russias-war-in-ukraine/

    More obvious weapons - missiles - will go through proxies

    But I’m bored of this now. PB is not susceptible to argument on this

    To Masterchef! Goodnight
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319
    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    The crucial thing here is that China has got Russia’s back. I suspect China - the world’s largest industrial and trading economy - is quietly supplying Russia via proxies like Iran and North Korea

    Hence Russia somehow never running out of drones and missiles, despite us being told this was imminent 18 months ago

    With China as a backup, Russia is fine. China won’t let Putin lose. Ukraine can’t win. Them’s the facts

    I don’t like it any more than most PBers but ignoring reality is dumb

    But this is not a defeat for the west. It is a bloody score draw. Russia has gained some territory but taken a terrible mauling, united NATO, lost Nordstream, lost many young emigrants, lost 300k dead, and will now see NATO defence spending surge

    PM Starmer will have the tough task of explaining to UK voters why defence must take money from the NHS and pensioners

    One of the problems with the calls for armistice is that Russia has explicitly & very publicly claimed the entirety of the four regions of Ukraine that it partially held as Russian territory. In reality they haven’t even managed to hold the entirety of the Donbas. Hence the massive attacks in the north to try and eke out some territorial advances there.

    To cede an armistice now means rowing back on those territorial claims that were made with great fanfare: It’s entirely possible that Putin has backed himself into a corner where the internal political calculus for him means that continuing the battle in Ukraine no matter the cost is the only way he can hold on to power. In which case no armistice is possible & the Russians are going to keep attacking until they run out of materiel regardless of whether we support Ukraine or not.
    Also the issue of the EU and NATO - with the war stopped, both would move forward. Both are completely unacceptable to the Putinists. if Ukraine joined NATO, it would probably be an existential crisis for Putin himself.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,841
    edited November 2023
    Presumably it'll be the electorate which throws the Conservatives out of the house via the ballot box.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,358
    edited November 2023
    I think Gary Neville just had an orgsasm on live TV.

    TBF it was worthy of an orgasm.
  • Options
    EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    Endillion said:

    Well done to @Cyclefree for marching.

    60,000 isn't bad. Not bad at all.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67537351

    105,000, according the organisers about half an hour ago.
    I remember being told on here that organisers always overstate the number of attendees on these matches.
    I know. Both numbers are from the organisers, so I'm just providing the updated overestimate.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561
    edited November 2023
    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    The crucial thing here is that China has got Russia’s back. I suspect China - the world’s largest industrial and trading economy - is quietly supplying Russia via proxies like Iran and North Korea

    Hence Russia somehow never running out of drones and missiles, despite us being told this was imminent 18 months ago

    With China as a backup, Russia is fine. China won’t let Putin lose. Ukraine can’t win. Them’s the facts

    I don’t like it any more than most PBers but ignoring reality is dumb

    But this is not a defeat for the west. It is a bloody score draw. Russia has gained some territory but taken a terrible mauling, united NATO, lost Nordstream, lost many young emigrants, lost 300k dead, and will now see NATO defence spending surge

    PM Starmer will have the tough task of explaining to UK voters why defence must take money from the NHS and pensioners

    One of the problems with the calls for armistice is that Russia has explicitly & very publicly claimed the entirety of the four regions of Ukraine that it partially held as Russian territory. In reality they haven’t even managed to hold the entirety of the Donbas. Hence the massive attacks in the north to try and eke out some territorial advances there.

    To cede an armistice now means rowing back on those territorial claims that were made with great fanfare: It’s entirely possible that Putin has backed himself into a corner where the internal political calculus for him means that continuing the battle in Ukraine no matter the cost is the only way he can hold on to power. In which case no armistice is possible & the Russians are going to keep attacking until they run out of materiel regardless of whether we support Ukraine or not.
    Putin is a dictator and they're not nearly as susceptible to political embarassments as leaders in civilised countries. I remember people saying in the middle of last year that Xi Jinping had staked his credibility so completely on continuing lockdown that he'd never dare to climb down. But then he abandoned it very quickly once protests started to escalate and clamped down yet further on dissent. That's what Putin will with those territorial claims if he thinks they've become a millstone.

    But tragically we, and particularly the Americans, seem to be stopping that from happening as we're making the Ukrainians fight with both hands behind their backs.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,982
    DKs could still make it closer if they stick with the incumbents but after 13 years of Conservative rule the odds are still for a change of government
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,530
    The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.

    https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/17834/cowdenbeath-kirkcaldy
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,125
    Leon said:




    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    That you can see!

    I mean I've picked boogers with more intelligence than you.

    You're a fucking appeaser, that clouds your judgment.

    Now go watch Threads again you ludicrous soaked up popinjay.
    Apart from anything else, this is embarrassingly bad prose with no rhythm or verbal invention
    Top marks for punctuation though. Unlike you and me.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,982

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    Indeed. I fear too many people think of Russia as still being a world superpower; perhaps third now, with the rise of China.

    In reality, in terms of GDP, they are 11th, behind Canada and just in front of Mexico. Russia may be a geographically massive country, but economically it is a middle-ranker. I can see this getting worse with the effects of the war, and problems will occur as more treasure gets diverted to the war effort.

    And it did not have to be like this. Russia has had twenty years of good times due to its resources; twenty years that Putin and his crones have utterly wasted.
    Economically Russia is now a mid table nation, militarily it is not the superpower it was as its failure to take Kyiv shows.

    However Moscow also has more nuclear weapons under its command than any other nation, including the US and China, which means it cannot be ignored either
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,358
    edited November 2023
    HYUFD said:
    I sometimes WFH in a onesie but only on non video call days.

    My team and colleagues would rinse me if they saw me in it.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,841
    HYUFD said:
    Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:
    I had the misfortune to be in Asda in Newark last week. I reckon 13% of shoppers were in their jammies!
  • Options
    Andy_JS said:

    The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.

    https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/17834/cowdenbeath-kirkcaldy

    Elstree & Borehamwood station is actually in Borehamwood :lol:
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:
    Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
    A suit on a supply teacher is a sure sign he isn't gonna cut it.
  • Options
    @TSE
    On 5USA (Freeview 21) right now, William Shatner is the guest villain on Columbo!
  • Options

    @TSE
    On 5USA (Freeview 21) right now, William Shatner is the guest villain on Columbo!

    Is he going boldly?
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,939

    HYUFD said:
    I sometimes WFH in a onesie but only on non video call days.

    My team and colleagues would rinse me if they saw me in it.
    I miss the era before video calling was a thing. Back in 2017, I would often be on seven hour conference calls from my office with other timezones dressed in hoodie and trainers, feet up on the couch, a bottle of vodka in one hand, a permanent middle finger raised at the polycom-voice-call thingy in the room.

    It was also much easier to take cocaine during the call, if that was your thing...
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,096
    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    The problem with that analysis what has actually happened.

    Russia started by firing off their shiny new missiles. Then went through their stock of anti-ship missiles. And now are reduced to Iranian drones - low speed, and relatively easy targets for air defences.

    With tanks and artillery - very little new production, and continued working through the stockpiles of older and older vehicles.

    This is because the Russian industrial economy is tiny - people used to joke that Russia was Mexico with missiles. Since NAFTA, Mexico has a bigger *industrial* economy...

    Numerous times during his reign, Putin has tried to bring back the autarkic ways of the Soviet Union. But that was always an illusion, concealing the imports that actually held things together. And creating the industrial capabilities needs the kind of expensive investment tat doesn't work well with graft - easier to steal the investment omen and buy from abroad.

    By comparison, the military aid that the West has provided is a tiny portion of the GDP of the countries involved (through some small countries have contributed far more). We don't need to switch to a war economy to make a million artillery shells a month. That's the Pentagons paperclip budget.
    Indeed. I fear too many people think of Russia as still being a world superpower; perhaps third now, with the rise of China.

    In reality, in terms of GDP, they are 11th, behind Canada and just in front of Mexico. Russia may be a geographically massive country, but economically it is a middle-ranker. I can see this getting worse with the effects of the war, and problems will occur as more treasure gets diverted to the war effort.

    And it did not have to be like this. Russia has had twenty years of good times due to its resources; twenty years that Putin and his crones have utterly wasted.
    Economically Russia is now a mid table nation, militarily it is not the superpower it was as its failure to take Kyiv shows.

    However Moscow also has more nuclear weapons under its command than any other nation, including the US and China, which means it cannot be ignored either
    I think that Ukraine has shown there are no circumstances nukes - even battlefield weapons - can be used by an aggressor. The temptation to do so must have been immense, especially when the Russians were being rolled over last autumn. That they weren't was more down to "friends" like China saying it would push Russia into a pariah state.

    They are a weapon of last resort to be used to stop an aggressor when all else is lost. Or perhaps in the unique case of Israel, when they could be used to stop a country acquiring nukes where it has an avowed aim of wiping you out as a nation.
  • Options

    @TSE
    On 5USA (Freeview 21) right now, William Shatner is the guest villain on Columbo!

    Am watching two shite teams playing soccer at the moment.
  • Options

    @TSE
    On 5USA (Freeview 21) right now, William Shatner is the guest villain on Columbo!

    Am watching two shite teams playing soccer at the moment.
    Oh well, he got arrested. The End!
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    If Russia is certain to win, and don’t care about losses, why would they agree to a ceasefire?
    Because Putin is sensitive to Russian public opinion and Russians want the war over

    Sure he can grind on and on, but then he risks losing the people, and even autocrats hate that

    He can just about sell the war, as it stands, as a victory
    He has backed himself into a corner over that. Russia have claimed (and created laws to incorporate into Russia) vast tracts of Ukrainian land. Much of that - e.g. Crimea - they currently control. But vast swathes of other territories, such as Kherson, are under Ukrainian control. It was stupid of them to put the line where they did, as it makes it harder to claim a 'victory' if you haven't got all the territory that is now, by law, mother Russia.

    And that makes it likely that Russia's position was that all those regions will have to come to them under any peace deal. Which means Ukraine would have to cede even more land to them. Something that makes a 'peace' deal more unlikely.
    If the war ends with Russia in de facto control of the land corridor to Crimea (but Crimea isn't even in charge of its own water supply), but with Ukraine joining NATO and the EU, that is very small return for Putin, when set against his stated war aims. Strategically, it's a defeat.

    And so, I see no chance that Putin would agree to a ceasefire, along those lines. He has an election coming up, but he doesn't have to worry very much that Russian losses will cause him to lose it. OTOH, he does have to worry that a ceasefire would cost him his head.

  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,499
    There may be some interesting parallels between Pat Buchanan's followers and your Reform party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan

    (I don't know enough about the latter to say for certain.)
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,125
    edited November 2023
    Have we done this?

    A photo of a man whose pants are on fire.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_ze20cWEAAB7y2?format=jpg&name=medium

    ( For reference, from Nads' X account)
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189
    edited November 2023
    What do we think of Tommy Robinson being arrested at the request of the march organisers (if, as Dan Hodges suggests, that's what happened)? Obviously, completely understand why the organisers didn't want him there, but can they just have people they don't like arrested?

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1728820100596469769

    (((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges
    Tommy Robinson’s arrest is not an example of “two-tier policing”. It’s an example of how organisers of today’s march reject the presence of extremists, whilst the organisers of the pro-Palestinian marches are perfectly comfortable with the presence of extremists.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,806
    Andy_JS said:

    The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.

    https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/17834/cowdenbeath-kirkcaldy

    Taking their cue from the governments they decided it was a Raith to the bottom.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    tlg86 said:

    What do we think of Tommy Robinson being arrested at the request of the march organisers (if, as Dan Hodges suggests, that's what happened)? Obviously, completely understand why the organisers didn't want him there, but can they just have people they don't like arrested?

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1728820100596469769

    (((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges
    Tommy Robinson’s arrest is not an example of “two-tier policing”. It’s an example of how organisers of today’s march reject the presence of extremists, whilst the organisers of the pro-Palestinian marches are perfectly comfortable with the presence of extremists.

    I think one can arrest him on public order grounds/breach of the peace, if the march organisers don't want him there.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,499
    One more explanation for the Loser's appeal to voters: Last Friday, in this area, union employees of the big department store chain, Macy's, went on strike. The biggest issue was employee safety:
    "It is a sign of retail’s unsettled state that the chief demand from striking Seattle-area Macy’s workers isn’t for more money but for less shoplifting.

    While the dozens of Macy’s workers who began picketing early Black Friday at Westfield Southcenter in Tukwila and Alderwood mall in Lynnwood definitely want better wages in a new contract, their big ask is that Macy’s do more about the thieves who brazenly pilfer from the stores and sometimes assault staff."
    source: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/seattle-area-macys-workers-strike-for-better-protection-from-crime/

    Many elected Democrats are vulnerable on crime, and that helps Republicans, including Republicans In Name Only, for example, the Loser.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:
    Oh you mean work from home :blush:
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    Pro_Rata said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.

    https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/17834/cowdenbeath-kirkcaldy

    Taking their cue from the governments they decided it was a Raith to the bottom.
    Alphabetical order? Although why would that matter?
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:
    Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
    Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.

    T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319
    tlg86 said:

    What do we think of Tommy Robinson being arrested at the request of the march organisers (if, as Dan Hodges suggests, that's what happened)? Obviously, completely understand why the organisers didn't want him there, but can they just have people they don't like arrested?

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1728820100596469769

    (((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges
    Tommy Robinson’s arrest is not an example of “two-tier policing”. It’s an example of how organisers of today’s march reject the presence of extremists, whilst the organisers of the pro-Palestinian marches are perfectly comfortable with the presence of extremists.

    The arrest will be for Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon either breaking the law on the spot or violating one of his numerous court orders not to do various things.

    I believe this with about 99% certainty, based on his extensive, well documented history of being arrested for being a racist dickhead
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:
    Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
    Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.

    T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
    A new member of the team asked me what the desk code was.

    I told him - “Clothes are preferred.”
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319
    ydoethur said:
    And we’re back to safeguarding. And probably OFSTED.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596

    I think Gary Neville just had an orgsasm on live TV.

    TBF it was worthy of an orgasm.

    The handjob of God?
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,451

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:
    Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
    Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.

    T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
    Pyjamas are the new underpants?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189

    tlg86 said:

    What do we think of Tommy Robinson being arrested at the request of the march organisers (if, as Dan Hodges suggests, that's what happened)? Obviously, completely understand why the organisers didn't want him there, but can they just have people they don't like arrested?

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1728820100596469769

    (((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges
    Tommy Robinson’s arrest is not an example of “two-tier policing”. It’s an example of how organisers of today’s march reject the presence of extremists, whilst the organisers of the pro-Palestinian marches are perfectly comfortable with the presence of extremists.

    The arrest will be for Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon either breaking the law on the spot or violating one of his numerous court orders not to do various things.

    I believe this with about 99% certainty, based on his extensive, well documented history of being arrested for being a racist dickhead
    Does that suggest Hodges is being harsh on the other lot for not having the anti-semites arrested at the pro-Palestine marches? Is it because Robinson is known to the police that it's easier to find a reason to nick him?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189
    Here's the statement from the police:

    https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1728776275022516390

    He refused to comply with a direction to disperse under Section 35 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    With all due respect to the soldier, I don’t think that’s correct.

    Russian mentality is inherited from Soviet times. Crucially, the latter emphasised raw numbers than the state the equipment was in - maintenance was extremely low down the list of priorities as the best human / industrial resources were devoted to production.

    Much Russian equipment - although simple and therefore easy to repair / replace compared with western equipment - is still likely to be in a shoddy state. After nearly two years, a lot would have been ground down.
    I suspect it's probably as much a reflection on the person who told me that's background as anything else -- somewhat senior during the cold war, so views coloured by that. I think his point was that the Russians were prepared to devote 100% of their resources to winning, while the west is only willing to give Ukraine scraps off the table.

    I think if the west was willing to commit more resources to Ukraine, the war would be winnable. That or we'd end up in WWIII / threads timeline.
    Another thing to note is that manpower is not as readily available as it was in WW2. Before WW2, the vast majority of Russian men worked in agriculture. This meant Russia had a massive reserve of manpower it could exploit, especially when getting millions of tonnes of food aid from the other allies. And it wasn't as if old Joe hadn't starved 'his' people in recent years, was it?

    Around 75% of Russians worked in agriculture in 1897. In 1940, it was 54%. At the same time in the UK, it was about 6%. Today in Russia, it is about 5.8%. The rest of the population will be in other occupations, many of which are also rather important to the economy and/or war effort. Stalin could squeeze the agricultural sector for manpower. It is much harder for Putin to squeeze other areas of the workforce, especially amongst the highly-skilled.

    https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/agriculture1996.pdf
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1005657/share-working-population-agriculture-europe-1930-1980/
    Are they classing troll farms as the agricultural sector?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,476
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    Does Russia want an armistice?
    A 'temporary pause' would suit them very well; an armistice not so much.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,506
    tlg86 said:

    What do we think of Tommy Robinson being arrested at the request of the march organisers (if, as Dan Hodges suggests, that's what happened)? Obviously, completely understand why the organisers didn't want him there, but can they just have people they don't like arrested?

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1728820100596469769

    (((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges
    Tommy Robinson’s arrest is not an example of “two-tier policing”. It’s an example of how organisers of today’s march reject the presence of extremists, whilst the organisers of the pro-Palestinian marches are perfectly comfortable with the presence of extremists.

    No idea what happened here, but the answer to the exact question "Can they (ie anyone) just have people they don't like arrested' is an unambiguous and emphatic No. Not being liked is neither an arrestable offence nor grounds for an arrest. Obvs.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    What do we think of Tommy Robinson being arrested at the request of the march organisers (if, as Dan Hodges suggests, that's what happened)? Obviously, completely understand why the organisers didn't want him there, but can they just have people they don't like arrested?

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1728820100596469769

    (((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges
    Tommy Robinson’s arrest is not an example of “two-tier policing”. It’s an example of how organisers of today’s march reject the presence of extremists, whilst the organisers of the pro-Palestinian marches are perfectly comfortable with the presence of extremists.

    The arrest will be for Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon either breaking the law on the spot or violating one of his numerous court orders not to do various things.

    I believe this with about 99% certainty, based on his extensive, well documented history of being arrested for being a racist dickhead
    Does that suggest Hodges is being harsh on the other lot for not having the anti-semites arrested at the pro-Palestine marches? Is it because Robinson is known to the police that it's easier to find a reason to nick him?
    Has he formally changed his name, or is he just ‘known as’?
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596
    MattW said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:
    Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
    Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.

    T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
    Pyjamas are the new underpants?
    John Major tucks his shirt into his pyjamas?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,476

    @TSE
    On 5USA (Freeview 21) right now, William Shatner is the guest villain on Columbo!

    Am watching two shite teams playing soccer at the moment.
    Oh well, he got arrested. The End!
    What was the charge - overacting ?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,476
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    Does Russia want an armistice?
    Not yet. If Ukraine starts to crack and the Western Alliance of Super Friends starts to look a bit wobbly then they have more to gain by buggering on. The number of casualties has very little, if any, bearing on the thinking.

    Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears, as the film title has it.
    Only other people's.
  • Options

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Dom Cummings retweeted this
    “US (+barking UK) will fight RUS to the last Ukrainian.

    That includes Ukrainian women?

    Videos already show trenches defended by UKR women soldiers?

    Early in war UKR boasted a "million man" army.

    >>100k casualties in order for them to resort to conscripting women now?

    🤔🎈🐒”

    https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1728111711075344793?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly

    “Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.

    It’s concern-trolling.
    Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.

    Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.

    The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
    God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense

    No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm

    They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour

    Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
    “splenetic nonsense” - that’s rich, coming from you.

    & regardless, you miss the point: If the Ukrainians want an armistice, then that’s for them to decide. This notion that they are being somehow manipulated by the west into continuing to fight is patronising nonsense.
    Well, it’s coming so you better get used to it. Here is the latest US NATO message to Ukraine. Look at the language

    “Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia’s forces since February 2022. In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine’s soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage. We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes. We continue to stand #UnitedWithUkraine while they defend their freedom

    https://x.com/usnato/status/1726615865980813706?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    I suspect the Bild report is true. Biden and Scholz want the war done. They will firmly nudge Ukraine towards “negotiations”
    Make your mind up! Are we pressuring Ukraine to keep fighting a proxy war on our behalf, or are we pressuring them to negotiate a peace proposal?

    You seem to want it both ways. I suggest the grown up thing to do is to let the Ukrainians decide what outcomes matter to them. If they decide on a negotiated armistice, then so be it.
    It is economic.

    What it boils down to is this, paraphrased from a soldier I spoke to off the record last year, so no names - Russia has both the industrial capacity and the will to fight on. The west made fun of Russia's decrepit 1950s materiel, tanks being pulled out of storage etc, but they've essentially still got a planned economy albeit planned by the klept rather than the politburo - and if they dedicate their industrial base to the war, they can overpower Ukraine. This they are in the process of doing - and the west simply doesn't have the *desire* to switch to a war economy. The more Russia gears itself towards a war economy, the harder it will be for us to keep supplying Ukraine with the necessary countermeasures. Either the west commits, or it doesn't. And because we don't like going without our creature comforts, we won't. The longer the war drags on for, the more Russia will roll out new materiel, mobilise further, etc. A frozen stalemate is probably the *best* outcome at this point. The longer the war continues, the more mobilised the Russian war machine becomes. And there will come a point where the west is not politically willing to throw ever more of its resources at the problem.

    We in the west are prepared to supply just enough materiel to ensure a stalemate, but not enough to enable the Ukrainians to win the war. That is arguably a western failing, but it is also the situation which Leon describes.
    With all due respect to the soldier, I don’t think that’s correct.

    Russian mentality is inherited from Soviet times. Crucially, the latter emphasised raw numbers than the state the equipment was in - maintenance was extremely low down the list of priorities as the best human / industrial resources were devoted to production.

    Much Russian equipment - although simple and therefore easy to repair / replace compared with western equipment - is still likely to be in a shoddy state. After nearly two years, a lot would have been ground down.
    I suspect it's probably as much a reflection on the person who told me that's background as anything else -- somewhat senior during the cold war, so views coloured by that. I think his point was that the Russians were prepared to devote 100% of their resources to winning, while the west is only willing to give Ukraine scraps off the table.

    I think if the west was willing to commit more resources to Ukraine, the war would be winnable. That or we'd end up in WWIII / threads timeline.
    Another thing to note is that manpower is not as readily available as it was in WW2. Before WW2, the vast majority of Russian men worked in agriculture. This meant Russia had a massive reserve of manpower it could exploit, especially when getting millions of tonnes of food aid from the other allies. And it wasn't as if old Joe hadn't starved 'his' people in recent years, was it?

    Around 75% of Russians worked in agriculture in 1897. In 1940, it was 54%. At the same time in the UK, it was about 6%. Today in Russia, it is about 5.8%. The rest of the population will be in other occupations, many of which are also rather important to the economy and/or war effort. Stalin could squeeze the agricultural sector for manpower. It is much harder for Putin to squeeze other areas of the workforce, especially amongst the highly-skilled.

    https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/agriculture1996.pdf
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1005657/share-working-population-agriculture-europe-1930-1980/
    Are they classing troll farms as the agricultural sector?
    Not if it's just a Saturday job.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,499
    edited November 2023
    FPT: From an absolutist point of view, we are all cannibals. For example, whenever you swallow, you swallow some of your own cells. (And there is "recycling" going on continually everywhere else in your body,)

    But perhaps you don't consider that cannibalism. So let me extend the argument a little. Suppose a person, desperate for attention, takes a few of their cells to a company which cultures them into meat enough for a steak. If that person cooks and eats the steak, would that be cannibalism?

    Now consider a futher extension: (Some of you will aready be there.) In a French kiss, the two exchange cells. Is that cannibalism?

    What if the two take some of their cells, have them cultured, and then exchange steaks? (Some lovers proclaim their devotion by saying to their partners that they could "just eat them up", so the idea isn't totally novel.)

    Capitalists -- and there are a few here -- can think of further extensions, easily. Socialists -- and there are a few here -- can think of reasons some of us should sacrifice for the greater good.

    (I don't have answers to most of those questions, but believe some of us ought to be thinking about them.)
  • Options
    RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,157
    edited November 2023
    So, I got round to watching the first of the Doctor Who specials today.
    I imagine some of the 'woke' elements will bother some 'culture war people', but this is night and day from the Chibnall era and I felt like I was actually watching Doctor Who again. I preferred Moffat's vision of Who to RTD's (at least when Moffat could be arsed), but there's no denying he knows how to write Doctor Who and Tennant's Doctor. Great performance by Margoyles as the Meep as well.
    I'm actually optimistic about the show again.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,506
    tlg86 said:

    Here's the statement from the police:

    https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1728776275022516390

    He refused to comply with a direction to disperse under Section 35 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act.


    'Section 35 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act provides police officers with discretionary powers to disperse individuals or groups causing, or likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to others. It enables officers to issue a dispersal order, which can cover a specific area for up to 48 hours, allowing them to instruct individuals to leave the area and not return for a designated period. Failure to comply with such an order can result in arrest.'
This discussion has been closed.