“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
An alternative view is that he perceives US military entanglements as uniformly failures.
The SNP will probably be quite happy with that outcome.
- It means they don't have to do something they finally sussed was impractical. - They can not do it without ratting on their coalition colleagues in the SGreens. - They have a stick to beat London with.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Of course America would intervene militarily if Mexico looked likely to join a Chinese military alliance. You don’t need a Trump for that, Biden would do it. Chinese troops and bases on the Texan border? Give over
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
52% of Americans support military strikes against the cartels in Mexico now, with 29% supporting it even if the Mexican government doesn't agree.
Off topic but @MightyAlex made a post last night that I didn't see until this morning and I wanted to mention it because it deserved a reply from me. He was disagreeing (sort of) with me and siding with @hyufd (sort of) and I thought it an excellent post, not least because I was posting something similar only a week or so previously, so it made me think twice about what I was arguing.
Also like to thank @hyufd for an excellent argument.
I do have a reply to square the circle and get myself out of my contradiction, but we have moved on from that argument now.
Aye, excellent post - and very true. A colleague of mine made Prof in relatively short order due in large part to a lucky* break in funding (essentially a charity she'd worked with decided to go big on research and funded her from lecturer to Prof over about five years). Now, she is an excellent academic and would no doubt have succeeded anyway, but it would have taken longer through multiple research grants to NIHR etc. She actually forced the Uni's hand a bit on the Prof thing anyway, having secured an offer of a chair elsewhere contingent on bringing her substantial charity funding - the Uni promoted (maybe slightly early, but only by a year or two) rather than lose her.
Re HYUFD, I started a reply his post last night, with the word "Bollocks" starting off, but never finished it. Needless to say I agree with what you and Carnyx were saying and, apart from anything else, we'd also lose the bright young British post-docs who start relationships with foreign PhD students and where they would both be free to both work in other countries but not here.
*she also made her own luck, of course - the charity were sufficiently impressed with her past work to be willing to bet big on her over five years, but it required the alignment of healthy charity finances and a CEO with a strong belief in the value of research beyond their core activities
I was remiss in not liking @MightyAlex post which I have done now. And now you have given me the opportunity to defend my original argument and square the circle of both agreeing with @MightyAlex and disagreeing with @HYUFD which appears contradictory (although you are clearly in the same boat as me)
Firstly, as we all do in a discussion, we tend to exaggerate our position, which is what I did. Obviously I don't think that Cambridge will crumble due to only duff British fellows being appointed while all the brilliant foreigners are lost. And I also agree there is a lot of luck involved in getting on, as well as ability as you pointed out. However in STEM subjects, particularly those with a strong mathematical element I believe it is pretty easy to discriminate between the best and second best and it just so happened I knew of a current example and had actually read the offer so knew that it was considerably below the £38k level so how could I not respond to hyufd's original post. I mean I just had to didn't I?
The only flaw was thankfully she now has a British passport so won't be thrown out on her ear. If we do prevent brilliant academics from taking up positions at our Universities because of this rule it really will be truly idiotic. My son and his girlfriend are truly brilliant. If she didn't have a British passport she would have to leave and he would follow.
The SNP will probably be quite happy with that outcome.
- It means they don't have to do something they finally sussed was impractical. - They can not do it without ratting on their coalition colleagues in the SGreens. - They have a stick to beat London with.
I hope the SNP will finally realise that their coalition with the Greens is toxic and damaging. I don’t expect them to.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
Even a lack of gusto about killing tens of thousands of brown people is apparently a failing when it comes to Trump.
Ukraine's' fate lies essentially in the twin decisions of the EU, and US Congress.
Ukraine Tracker Update: New aid commitments since August 2023 collapsed . The past 3 months saw the lowest amount of new pledges since the start of the war. The €50bn EU package (the big peak in June 👇) is crucial. If vetoed, UKR could be (almost) without aid in 2024.🧵 https://twitter.com/Ch_Trebesch/status/1732752778085167157
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Of course America would intervene militarily if Mexico looked likely to join a Chinese military alliance. You don’t need a Trump for that, Biden would do it. Chinese troops and bases on the Texan border? Give over
The Mexico example is flawed on another, more important count.
Russia, centred on Moscow, started gobbling up grand duchies and the like after the Golden Horde were defeated. Previously, Kyiv had been the heartland of the Rus. Russia's imperialist tendencies led to it seeking dominion over other nearby nations, including the Baltic Tigers.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are not Russian realms that have broken free. They're independent countries that were held behind the Iron Curtain by force and the threat of force. They willingly sought NATO protection because they were acutely aware of Russia's imperialist attitude towards invading neighbouring nations.
Mexico has not recently freed itself from the USA, which never conquered it or held it by force and the threat of force. There's no prospect of the US invading Mexico, or Canada. If Canada or Mexico agreed to host Chinese military forces and join a Sino version of NATO that would be entirely different to the situation in the Baltic.
So allegedly Braverman signed off an extra 100 million pounds for Rwanda and Sunak knew nothing about this ! And we’re supposed to believe this .
That's utterly implausible.
Oh wait, it's Sunak we're talking about.
He looks useless either way . Spaffing another 100 million pounds or not knowing that one of his cabinet secretaries had just signed the cheque. This is surely going to infuriate Braverman if she thinks she’s been made a scapegoat .
If they can get the work done in fewer hours then who cares? I've automated all the dashboards and models I'm responsible for and can spend the rest of the weekend enjoying PB/writing about mountains/doing research and my manager is perfectly happy (until the code breaks).
This attitude to public sector workers is perhaps why their productivity doesn't increase as fast at the private sector. They don't get pay rises when they come up with something innovative, and they don't get time off either. Excel 4ever.
If they can get the work done in fewer hours then there is clearly not a 39 or 37.5 hours a week job there which they are currently working on.
You think private sector workers get pay rises when they come up with something innovative. What a quaint notion.
The problem the union is actually trying to solve is a lack of workers willing to take the pay being offered at Defra and elsewhere (see for instance South Cambridgeshire council).
Reality is if the pay is crap the only way you could get people to accept the poor pay is to offer them something else - and a 4 day week does that - as you would see if you look at somewhere like Atom Bank
So what happens to the work that is not being done then ? It doesn't just disappear.
I do not buy the claim these people suddenly become far more productive as a result. These claims are usually put forward by the advocates of said policies. Effectively marking their own homework. There is alot of that going in policy making these days.
I have said before, in other threads, something needs to be done about local govt funding from central govt. The cuts cannot go on. There are only so many "efficiencies" that can be made. I am hoping a new govt under SKS grasps the nettle on this. It is pointless cutting NI only for that cut to be taken up by increase local govt taxes.
As for the claims the pay is crap. What are people in these roles paid and how does that compare to the private sector. What about the fringe benefits too, which are part of a compensation package. Such as extra holidays and better pensions ?
The Mexico example is flawed on another, more important count.
Russia, centred on Moscow, started gobbling up grand duchies and the like after the Golden Horde were defeated. Previously, Kyiv had been the heartland of the Rus. Russia's imperialist tendencies led to it seeking dominion over other nearby nations, including the Baltic Tigers.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are not Russian realms that have broken free. They're independent countries that were held behind the Iron Curtain by force and the threat of force. They willingly sought NATO protection because they were acutely aware of Russia's imperialist attitude towards invading neighbouring nations.
Mexico has not recently freed itself from the USA, which never conquered it or held it by force and the threat of force. There's no prospect of the US invading Mexico, or Canada. If Canada or Mexico agreed to host Chinese military forces and join a Sino version of NATO that would be entirely different to the situation in the Baltic.
Actually and laughably untrue
The US conquered Mexico in the US-Mexican war of 1846-48, and America occupied Mexico City
I think it would be wise for the ERG etc. to back Sunak's Rwanda bill. That leaves the Tory left the isolated ones in opposing it. I don't see any merit in torpedoing the bill - it's not going to result in a strengthened version of it getting through.
The Mexico example is flawed on another, more important count.
Russia, centred on Moscow, started gobbling up grand duchies and the like after the Golden Horde were defeated. Previously, Kyiv had been the heartland of the Rus. Russia's imperialist tendencies led to it seeking dominion over other nearby nations, including the Baltic Tigers.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are not Russian realms that have broken free. They're independent countries that were held behind the Iron Curtain by force and the threat of force. They willingly sought NATO protection because they were acutely aware of Russia's imperialist attitude towards invading neighbouring nations.
Mexico has not recently freed itself from the USA, which never conquered it or held it by force and the threat of force. There's no prospect of the US invading Mexico, or Canada. If Canada or Mexico agreed to host Chinese military forces and join a Sino version of NATO that would be entirely different to the situation in the Baltic.
Actually and laughably untrue
The US conquered Mexico in the US-Mexican war of 1846-48, and America occupied Mexico City
I think it would be wise for the ERG etc. to back Sunak's Rwanda bill. That leaves the Tory left the isolated ones in opposing it. I don't see any merit in torpedoing the bill - it's not going to result in a strengthened version of it getting through.
Why? It doesn't give the ERG and co what they want.
Plus Rishi losing Monday's vote would be seriously funny and show the pointlessness of the approach they've used...
The SNP will probably be quite happy with that outcome.
- It means they don't have to do something they finally sussed was impractical. - They can not do it without ratting on their coalition colleagues in the SGreens. - They have a stick to beat London with.
There is the slightly tricky question of whether the Scottish government will appeal. It's obvious that the sensible thing is to let sleeping dogs lie, but I suppose the SNP may need to convince the wokeists that they have tried every avenue. And if they don't take it further it is glaringly obvious they know they have messed up.
The SNP will probably be quite happy with that outcome.
- It means they don't have to do something they finally sussed was impractical. - They can not do it without ratting on their coalition colleagues in the SGreens. - They have a stick to beat London with.
Except most Scots back the UK government on this issue in polls
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
Even a lack of gusto about killing tens of thousands of brown people is apparently a failing when it comes to Trump.
A lack of willingness to defend allies encourages those allies' enemies. It's not difficult.
I'm not advocating some neoCon rampage - I did actually oppose the Iraq War at the time. I am suggesting that he wouldn't use force even where it was justified.
(FWIW, I disagree that most administrations would intervene in Mexico if they signed a defensive alliance with China and established bases there. It's not 1961 any more).
The Mexico example is flawed on another, more important count.
Russia, centred on Moscow, started gobbling up grand duchies and the like after the Golden Horde were defeated. Previously, Kyiv had been the heartland of the Rus. Russia's imperialist tendencies led to it seeking dominion over other nearby nations, including the Baltic Tigers.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are not Russian realms that have broken free. They're independent countries that were held behind the Iron Curtain by force and the threat of force. They willingly sought NATO protection because they were acutely aware of Russia's imperialist attitude towards invading neighbouring nations.
Mexico has not recently freed itself from the USA, which never conquered it or held it by force and the threat of force. There's no prospect of the US invading Mexico, or Canada. If Canada or Mexico agreed to host Chinese military forces and join a Sino version of NATO that would be entirely different to the situation in the Baltic.
Actually and laughably untrue
The US conquered Mexico in the US-Mexican war of 1846-48, and America occupied Mexico City
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
Even a lack of gusto about killing tens of thousands of brown people is apparently a failing when it comes to Trump.
A lack of willingness to defend allies encourages those allies' enemies. It's not difficult.
I'm not advocating some neoCon rampage - I did actually oppose the Iraq War at the time. I am suggesting that he wouldn't use force even where it was justified.
(FWIW, I disagree that most administrations would intervene in Mexico if they signed a defensive alliance with China and established bases there. It's not 1961 any more).
How can someone as intelligent as you, think this??
imagine the presidential election following the Great Mexican-Chinese Alliance of 2025
“So you, president Kamala Harris, allowed Mexico to unite with our greatest enemy, and now America is threatened by Chinese trained troops and Chinese missiles stationed right across the Rio Grande, why should anyone vote for you, given that you’ve put Americans in direct danger for the first time since 1812?”
Who would win that election? It ain’t gonna be Kamala, is it?
I think it would be wise for the ERG etc. to back Sunak's Rwanda bill. That leaves the Tory left the isolated ones in opposing it. I don't see any merit in torpedoing the bill - it's not going to result in a strengthened version of it getting through.
I think it would be wise for the ERG etc. to back Sunak's Rwanda bill. That leaves the Tory left the isolated ones in opposing it. I don't see any merit in torpedoing the bill - it's not going to result in a strengthened version of it getting through.
Why? It doesn't give the ERG and co what they want.
Plus Rishi losing Monday's vote would be seriously funny and show the pointlessness of the approach they've used...
The best for the country will be for it to lose because the Tory left think it is absurdly right wing and the Tory right think the bill is for woke lefty human rights softies only.
At the point the Tories could start a 10 year programme, in opposition, of sorting out their principles, objectives, policies and aims. Some of would like to know what they are.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
Even a lack of gusto about killing tens of thousands of brown people is apparently a failing when it comes to Trump.
A lack of willingness to defend allies encourages those allies' enemies. It's not difficult.
I'm not advocating some neoCon rampage - I did actually oppose the Iraq War at the time. I am suggesting that he wouldn't use force even where it was justified.
(FWIW, I disagree that most administrations would intervene in Mexico if they signed a defensive alliance with China and established bases there. It's not 1961 any more).
Liked, but wanted to doubly like, even the bit in brackets. I also thought the same and also contemplated 1961. It is like telepathy.
I think it would be wise for the ERG etc. to back Sunak's Rwanda bill. That leaves the Tory left the isolated ones in opposing it. I don't see any merit in torpedoing the bill - it's not going to result in a strengthened version of it getting through.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Putin was playing a game? You know, the sort of thing he's been doing for the last couple of decades?
Gorbachev and Putin made approaches to NATO to join. As many commentaries point out, NATO, fresh from its Cold War victory, said fuck off. As was famously said by some US General or other, don't worry we are going to be the world's policeman from now and we don't need any help from you.
Ah I see the 'nuance' that goes curiously missing when you're doing 'Israel Good, Palestine Bad' is back on display. Jolly good.
You misunderstand. As usual. You think this is a huge gotcha whereas it is someone, me, seeking to understand the causes of each conflict.
Understanding the causes of something doesn't mean sympathy or antipathy. It means understanding. I understand the Russia and NATO and Ukraine perspectives and I understand the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives. In fact even someone with as limited perspicacity as you could do this also. It is then a matter of assessing one's views on it all.
I could sit here and argue all day the Palestinian position, although I would struggle with some of their actions and responses to events, but I would make a fair fist of it.
I then can weigh up which position I agree with.
If you had the self-confidence in your own views you would understand what I mean. But you don't so you don't.
It's not a Gotcha, god no, it's just a (moderately acute) observation. You know how I like to make them from time to time. As for affecting a strident certainty in one's own 'views'. No I don't strain for that. That's a fair cop.
I think it would be wise for the ERG etc. to back Sunak's Rwanda bill. That leaves the Tory left the isolated ones in opposing it. I don't see any merit in torpedoing the bill - it's not going to result in a strengthened version of it getting through.
Who constitutes the 'Tory Left' these days?
A seizeable chunk of the PCP and most of the Cabinet.
I think it would be wise for the ERG etc. to back Sunak's Rwanda bill. That leaves the Tory left the isolated ones in opposing it. I don't see any merit in torpedoing the bill - it's not going to result in a strengthened version of it getting through.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Of course America would intervene militarily if Mexico looked likely to join a Chinese military alliance. You don’t need a Trump for that, Biden would do it. Chinese troops and bases on the Texan border? Give over
Claiming otherwise is the statement of an idiot
A like from HY sums up the worth of that post.
You are simply clueless
I'm not going to waste time arguing about your stupid analogy that others are readily pointing the flaws in, a scenario that is never going to happen anyway.
How about you address my much more relevant, and unfortunately all too common, analogy:
"Here's a better analogy to your 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife at fault for 'poking her bear' of a husband? Was she fuck."
The SNP will probably be quite happy with that outcome.
- It means they don't have to do something they finally sussed was impractical. - They can not do it without ratting on their coalition colleagues in the SGreens. - They have a stick to beat London with.
I hope the SNP will finally realise that their coalition with the Greens is toxic and damaging. I don’t expect them to.
Off topic but @MightyAlex made a post last night that I didn't see until this morning and I wanted to mention it because it deserved a reply from me. He was disagreeing (sort of) with me and siding with @hyufd (sort of) and I thought it an excellent post, not least because I was posting something similar only a week or so previously, so it made me think twice about what I was arguing.
Also like to thank @hyufd for an excellent argument.
I do have a reply to square the circle and get myself out of my contradiction, but we have moved on from that argument now.
Aye, excellent post - and very true. A colleague of mine made Prof in relatively short order due in large part to a lucky* break in funding (essentially a charity she'd worked with decided to go big on research and funded her from lecturer to Prof over about five years). Now, she is an excellent academic and would no doubt have succeeded anyway, but it would have taken longer through multiple research grants to NIHR etc. She actually forced the Uni's hand a bit on the Prof thing anyway, having secured an offer of a chair elsewhere contingent on bringing her substantial charity funding - the Uni promoted (maybe slightly early, but only by a year or two) rather than lose her.
Re HYUFD, I started a reply his post last night, with the word "Bollocks" starting off, but never finished it. Needless to say I agree with what you and Carnyx were saying and, apart from anything else, we'd also lose the bright young British post-docs who start relationships with foreign PhD students and where they would both be free to both work in other countries but not here.
*she also made her own luck, of course - the charity were sufficiently impressed with her past work to be willing to bet big on her over five years, but it required the alignment of healthy charity finances and a CEO with a strong belief in the value of research beyond their core activities
More post doc places for British phd students with these plans though, many of whom can't get academic places post study now
You assume the pie stays the same and Brits (without foreign dependents, natch) get more slices. That's not a given. They may get a larger proportion of a smaller pie and fewer actual slices.
Also, citation needed for "many of whom can't get academic places post study now". I've never known a PhD student who wants to remain in academia struggle to get a post-doc position (this may be field-dependent, for sure). Some struggle to progress beyond that, but that's another issue - those strugglers would still, beyond immediate post-doc level, be competing with foreign academics as the pay would be above the threshold.
I’ve known people struggle to get a post-doc (in life sciences), and definitely to struggle to get a decent one that doesn’t involving moving halfway across the country for a 2-year position. But I wouldn’t say that’s because of competition from foreign academics at that level, and indeed it’s going beyond post-docs which is harder.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
"Wah-wah, nobody agrees with my stupid alt-right opinions. Wah-wah, I'm going to flounce off if you're all going to point out the flaws in my posts. Wah-wah!"
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Of course America would intervene militarily if Mexico looked likely to join a Chinese military alliance. You don’t need a Trump for that, Biden would do it. Chinese troops and bases on the Texan border? Give over
Claiming otherwise is the statement of an idiot
A like from HY sums up the worth of that post.
You are simply clueless
I'm not going to waste time arguing about your stupid analogy that others are readily pointing the flaws in, a scenario that is never going to happen anyway.
How about you address my much more relevant, and unfortunately all too common, analogy:
"Here's a better analogy to your 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife at fault for 'poking her bear' of a husband? Was she fuck."
The “others readily pointing the flaws in my analogy” consists of @Morris_Dancer claiming that the USA has “never conquered Mexico or invaded Mexico or occupied Mexico by force or threat of force” despite the USA conquering Mexico and invading Mexico and occupying Mexico by force and threat of force in the Mexican-American War of 1846
Otherwise, another devastating swish of the sabre, I am cut to the bone
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Putin was playing a game? You know, the sort of thing he's been doing for the last couple of decades?
Gorbachev and Putin made approaches to NATO to join. As many commentaries point out, NATO, fresh from its Cold War victory, said fuck off. As was famously said by some US General or other, don't worry we are going to be the world's policeman from now and we don't need any help from you.
Ah I see the 'nuance' that goes curiously missing when you're doing 'Israel Good, Palestine Bad' is back on display. Jolly good.
You misunderstand. As usual. You think this is a huge gotcha whereas it is someone, me, seeking to understand the causes of each conflict.
Understanding the causes of something doesn't mean sympathy or antipathy. It means understanding. I understand the Russia and NATO and Ukraine perspectives and I understand the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives. In fact even someone with as limited perspicacity as you could do this also. It is then a matter of assessing one's views on it all.
I could sit here and argue all day the Palestinian position, although I would struggle with some of their actions and responses to events, but I would make a fair fist of it.
I then can weigh up which position I agree with.
If you had the self-confidence in your own views you would understand what I mean. But you don't so you don't.
It's not a Gotcha, god no, it's just a (moderately acute) observation. You know how I like to make them from time to time. As for affecting a strident certainty in one's own 'views'. No I don't strain for that. That's a fair cop.
Russia is no longer a great power, so why should the rest of us pretend that it is?
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
"Wah-wah, nobody agrees with my stupid alt-right opinions. Wah-wah, I'm going to flounce off if you're all going to point out the flaws in my posts. Wah-wah!"
Count yourself lucky. I’m actually giving you a second chance, which is more than you deserve, TBH
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Putin was playing a game? You know, the sort of thing he's been doing for the last couple of decades?
Gorbachev and Putin made approaches to NATO to join. As many commentaries point out, NATO, fresh from its Cold War victory, said fuck off. As was famously said by some US General or other, don't worry we are going to be the world's policeman from now and we don't need any help from you.
Ah I see the 'nuance' that goes curiously missing when you're doing 'Israel Good, Palestine Bad' is back on display. Jolly good.
You misunderstand. As usual. You think this is a huge gotcha whereas it is someone, me, seeking to understand the causes of each conflict.
Understanding the causes of something doesn't mean sympathy or antipathy. It means understanding. I understand the Russia and NATO and Ukraine perspectives and I understand the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives. In fact even someone with as limited perspicacity as you could do this also. It is then a matter of assessing one's views on it all.
I could sit here and argue all day the Palestinian position, although I would struggle with some of their actions and responses to events, but I would make a fair fist of it.
I then can weigh up which position I agree with.
If you had the self-confidence in your own views you would understand what I mean. But you don't so you don't.
It's not a Gotcha, god no, it's just a (moderately acute) observation. You know how I like to make them from time to time. As for affecting a strident certainty in one's own 'views'. No I don't strain for that. That's a fair cop.
Russia is no longer a great power, so why should the rest of us pretend that it is?
You what, Sean? I think that should have gone to someone else?
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
"Wah-wah, nobody agrees with my stupid alt-right opinions. Wah-wah, I'm going to flounce off if you're all going to point out the flaws in my posts. Wah-wah!"
Count yourself lucky. I’m actually giving you a second chance, which is more than you deserve, TBH
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Of course America would intervene militarily if Mexico looked likely to join a Chinese military alliance. You don’t need a Trump for that, Biden would do it. Chinese troops and bases on the Texan border? Give over
Claiming otherwise is the statement of an idiot
A like from HY sums up the worth of that post.
You are simply clueless
I'm not going to waste time arguing about your stupid analogy that others are readily pointing the flaws in, a scenario that is never going to happen anyway.
How about you address my much more relevant, and unfortunately all too common, analogy:
"Here's a better analogy to your 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife at fault for 'poking her bear' of a husband? Was she fuck."
If the poking the bear is such a threat, the bear should be shot.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
"Wah-wah, nobody agrees with my stupid alt-right opinions. Wah-wah, I'm going to flounce off if you're all going to point out the flaws in my posts. Wah-wah!"
Count yourself lucky. I’m actually giving you a second chance, which is more than you deserve, TBH
I'm honoured. Tbh I would miss you but you are pretty dim. Not really your fault, I guess.
The Mexico example is flawed on another, more important count.
Russia, centred on Moscow, started gobbling up grand duchies and the like after the Golden Horde were defeated. Previously, Kyiv had been the heartland of the Rus. Russia's imperialist tendencies led to it seeking dominion over other nearby nations, including the Baltic Tigers.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are not Russian realms that have broken free. They're independent countries that were held behind the Iron Curtain by force and the threat of force. They willingly sought NATO protection because they were acutely aware of Russia's imperialist attitude towards invading neighbouring nations.
Mexico has not recently freed itself from the USA, which never conquered it or held it by force and the threat of force. There's no prospect of the US invading Mexico, or Canada. If Canada or Mexico agreed to host Chinese military forces and join a Sino version of NATO that would be entirely different to the situation in the Baltic.
The US did significantly conquer Mexico - as its continued possession of the territory of Texas attests. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War
Did the US conquer Mexico in 1945, then hold onto it until compelled to withdraw about half a century later? Are you comparing apples with oranges? The world has, in some ways, thankfully improved since the 19th century. Unless you're a Russian imperialist.
If you want to go back to the 19th century, fine. But Lithuania (depending how you define it) is about a thousand years old. A few decades under Soviet Dominion doesn't make it a natural part of Russia.
You also missed out that most Texans wanted to be part of the USA. And that the Mexicans were not recognising (a contentious) treaty regarding Texas' right to determine its own future and still maintained that Texas was their territory.
By contrast, the Russian invasions of Ukraine also fail to recognise the treaty to sustain Ukraine's borders (laughably, the Russian state is one such guarantor). And the Ukrainians don't want to be Russian. The idea Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia would not be at dire risk of invasion if they weren't in NATO is optimistic at best.
I think it would be wise for the ERG etc. to back Sunak's Rwanda bill. That leaves the Tory left the isolated ones in opposing it. I don't see any merit in torpedoing the bill - it's not going to result in a strengthened version of it getting through.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
"Wah-wah, nobody agrees with my stupid alt-right opinions. Wah-wah, I'm going to flounce off if you're all going to point out the flaws in my posts. Wah-wah!"
Count yourself lucky. I’m actually giving you a second chance, which is more than you deserve, TBH
Sorry, missed all this. What are you trying to argue? That if Russia were America and Ukraine was Mexico and America was China, that Puti ... sorry Biden would do what Putin has done?
In which case ooo er. Very interesting. And you do have to wonder.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
You have more than one guise on here. You could argue with yourself.
He's worried he might lose.
Well, I could only lose to myself, couldn’t I, given the intellectual calibre of everyone else? I mean, there is no one else in the lists. No one to joust with. Just weird smelly peasants cheerfully eating lumps of horse-dung, like @kjh and @Benpointer and @Morris_Dancer
I may have to fold my tents, doff my armour, and tell the squire to go home to his bairns
Mr. B, yeah, that's a fair point and something I missed. However, the US didn't occupy the whole of Mexico and hold onto it until a few decades ago. And there was much contention over the state of Texas (which had declared independence from Mexico) and a related treaty. And it was a century and a half ago, rather than a couple of years ago.
Applying modern norms to the past few years may make sense. Doing so for the mid-19th century rather less so.
Edited extra bit: although this is a side issue, given the main bone of contention is Mr. Leon's wrongful view that Lithuania is somehow a natural part of Russia.
Did the US conquer Mexico in 1945, then hold onto it until compelled to withdraw about half a century later? Are you comparing apples with oranges? The world has, in some ways, thankfully improved since the 19th century. Unless you're a Russian imperialist.
If you want to go back to the 19th century, fine. But Lithuania (depending how you define it) is about a thousand years old. A few decades under Soviet Dominion doesn't make it a natural part of Russia.
You also missed out that most Texans wanted to be part of the USA. And that the Mexicans were not recognising (a contentious) treaty regarding Texas' right to determine its own future and still maintained that Texas was their territory.
By contrast, the Russian invasions of Ukraine also fail to recognise the treaty to sustain Ukraine's borders (laughably, the Russian state is one such guarantor). And the Ukrainians don't want to be Russian. The idea Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia would not be at dire risk of invasion if they weren't in NATO is optimistic at best.
I think it would be wise for the ERG etc. to back Sunak's Rwanda bill. That leaves the Tory left the isolated ones in opposing it. I don't see any merit in torpedoing the bill - it's not going to result in a strengthened version of it getting through.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
You have more than one guise on here. You could argue with yourself.
He's worried he might lose.
Well, I could only lose to myself, couldn’t I, given the intellectual calibre of everyone else? I mean, there is no one else in the lists. No one to joust with. Just weird smelly peasants cheerfully eating lumps of horse-dung, like @kjh and @Benpointer and @Morris_Dancer
I may have to fold my tents, doff my armour, and tell the squire to go home to his bairns
Good grief I haven't even been debating with you and not for sometime either. I'm obviously living fent free in your head. I'm guessing from all the arguments you have lost against me. What was that quote from someone a few weeks ago. Oh yes 'kjh skewered you '. I did enjoy that.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
52% of Americans support military strikes against the cartels in Mexico now, with 29% supporting it even if the Mexican government doesn't agree.
Genuine question, because I don’t know the answer. Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities? Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification? Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics? Are we reducing the value of e.g. a law degree from Cambridge or an Engineering degree from Strathclyde by equating them to a Tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian? Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
Even a lack of gusto about killing tens of thousands of brown people is apparently a failing when it comes to Trump.
A lack of willingness to defend allies encourages those allies' enemies. It's not difficult.
I'm not advocating some neoCon rampage - I did actually oppose the Iraq War at the time. I am suggesting that he wouldn't use force even where it was justified.
(FWIW, I disagree that most administrations would intervene in Mexico if they signed a defensive alliance with China and established bases there. It's not 1961 any more).
How can someone as intelligent as you, think this??
imagine the presidential election following the Great Mexican-Chinese Alliance of 2025
“So you, president Kamala Harris, allowed Mexico to unite with our greatest enemy, and now America is threatened by Chinese trained troops and Chinese missiles stationed right across the Rio Grande, why should anyone vote for you, given that you’ve put Americans in direct danger for the first time since 1812?”
Who would win that election? It ain’t gonna be Kamala, is it?
FFS
Because I doubt China would be so crass as to do a Khrushchev, for one thing. They'd start with infrastructure facilities and 'advisors' rather than outright military bases.
I'm not suggesting Washington would like it. Indeed, as you suggest, it's possible it could be an election-loser - though foreign policy rarely decides elections, even foreign policy so close to home, and Harris is perfectly capable of losing an election by herself anyway. But the alternative? Military action? Against Chinese soldiers on the ground, without a provocation other than their presence alone? I think the days when that might have been (was) a viable option are over.
The SNP will probably be quite happy with that outcome.
- It means they don't have to do something they finally sussed was impractical. - They can not do it without ratting on their coalition colleagues in the SGreens. - They have a stick to beat London with.
There is the slightly tricky question of whether the Scottish government will appeal. It's obvious that the sensible thing is to let sleeping dogs lie, but I suppose the SNP may need to convince the wokeists that they have tried every avenue. And if they don't take it further it is glaringly obvious they know they have messed up.
They could always appeal for appearances' sake, to play nice to the Greens and to definitively establish what the law is here, while still being sanguine about ultimately losing.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
"Wah-wah, nobody agrees with my stupid alt-right opinions. Wah-wah, I'm going to flounce off if you're all going to point out the flaws in my posts. Wah-wah!"
Count yourself lucky. I’m actually giving you a second chance, which is more than you deserve, TBH
Sorry, missed all this. What are you trying to argue? That if Russia were America and Ukraine was Mexico and America was China, that Puti ... sorry Biden would do what Putin has done?
In which case ooo er. Very interesting. And you do have to wonder.
I never thought I’d be so glad to argue with @kinabalu!
But yes, that is what i am arguing. America absolutely perceives itself as an imperial power, AND still as THE superpower in many ways, and there is simply no way they would politically, economically or militarily accept Mexico uniting in an anti-American military alliance with Beijing. It is inconceivable, and any president that allowed this to happen would be utterly trounced in the consequent election
So, democratically it would not happen, either
I mean, America barely tolerates Chinese hegemony over the South China Sea and the near-Chinese Pacific, and we wonder if America would go to war over Taiwan
Mexico???? Get real
The wider point relates to Russian self-perception, In many ways Russia perceives itself as a Great Power and a near-peer of the USA, only recently stripped of superpower status. Many - me included - would say this is delusional, Russia is much closer to ex imperial states like France or Britain than China or the USA, nonetheless there is that streak in Russian thinking, and you can either handle it carefully, and avoid wars, and let Russia gently decline any road, or you can provoke the wounded Bear, and make it lash out, which helps no one. My suggestion - and it is only that - is that we maybe provoked Russia unwisely when we extended NATO to the Russian border
We could have been cleverer and got what wanted with a more emollient soothing of wounded Russian pride. Now we have half a million dead in Ukraine and a likely new Korea, divided for decades
"In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".
Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"
Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.
We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).
I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.
The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.
Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.
No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
People being able to choose their own news is one of the biggest problems. With traditional newspapers and TV news, you're forced to read or listen to a lot of news that you wouldn't necessarily choose to read or listen to. Sure, you can choose whether to buy the Guardian or the Daily Mail, but even within those pages there will be a lot of variety. But just clicking on what you feel like isn't a good idea. People are likely to just choose things they already agree with.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
You have more than one guise on here. You could argue with yourself.
He's worried he might lose.
Well, I could only lose to myself, couldn’t I, given the intellectual calibre of everyone else? I mean, there is no one else in the lists. No one to joust with. Just weird smelly peasants cheerfully eating lumps of horse-dung, like @kjh and @Benpointer and @Morris_Dancer
I may have to fold my tents, doff my armour, and tell the squire to go home to his bairns
Good grief I haven't even been debating with you and not for sometime either. I'm obviously living fent free in your head. I'm guessing from all the arguments you have lost against me. What was that quote from someone a few weeks ago. Oh yes 'kjh skewered you '. I did enjoy that.
I mentioned you solely so that you’d get a tiny, almost sexual shudder of excitement, possibly the highlight of your week?
I think it would be wise for the ERG etc. to back Sunak's Rwanda bill. That leaves the Tory left the isolated ones in opposing it. I don't see any merit in torpedoing the bill - it's not going to result in a strengthened version of it getting through.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
You have more than one guise on here. You could argue with yourself.
He's worried he might lose.
Well, I could only lose to myself, couldn’t I, given the intellectual calibre of everyone else? I mean, there is no one else in the lists. No one to joust with. Just weird smelly peasants cheerfully eating lumps of horse-dung, like @kjh and @Benpointer and @Morris_Dancer
I may have to fold my tents, doff my armour, and tell the squire to go home to his bairns
Good grief I haven't even been debating with you and not for sometime either. I'm obviously living fent free in your head. I'm guessing from all the arguments you have lost against me. What was that quote from someone a few weeks ago. Oh yes 'kjh skewered you '. I did enjoy that.
I mentioned you solely so that you’d get a tiny, almost sexual shudder of excitement, possibly the highlight of your week?
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
You have more than one guise on here. You could argue with yourself.
He's worried he might lose.
Well, I could only lose to myself, couldn’t I, given the intellectual calibre of everyone else? I mean, there is no one else in the lists. No one to joust with. Just weird smelly peasants cheerfully eating lumps of horse-dung, like @kjh and @Benpointer and @Morris_Dancer
I may have to fold my tents, doff my armour, and tell the squire to go home to his bairns
Good grief I haven't even been debating with you and not for sometime either. I'm obviously living fent free in your head. I'm guessing from all the arguments you have lost against me. What was that quote from someone a few weeks ago. Oh yes 'kjh skewered you '. I did enjoy that.
Sozza but "[I'm] living rent free in your head" must surely go on the list.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
"Wah-wah, nobody agrees with my stupid alt-right opinions. Wah-wah, I'm going to flounce off if you're all going to point out the flaws in my posts. Wah-wah!"
Count yourself lucky. I’m actually giving you a second chance, which is more than you deserve, TBH
Sorry, missed all this. What are you trying to argue? That if Russia were America and Ukraine was Mexico and America was China, that Puti ... sorry Biden would do what Putin has done?
In which case ooo er. Very interesting. And you do have to wonder.
I never thought I’d be so glad to argue with @kinabalu!
But yes, that is what i am arguing. America absolutely perceives itself as an imperial power, AND still as THE superpower in many ways, and there is simply no way they would politically, economically or militarily accept Mexico uniting in an anti-American military alliance with Beijing. It is inconceivable, and any president that allowed this to happen would be utterly trounced in the consequent election
So, democratically it would not happen, either
I mean, America barely tolerates Chinese hegemony over the South China Sea and the near-Chinese Pacific, and we wonder if America would go to war over Taiwan
Mexico???? Get real
The wider point relates to Russian self-perception, In many ways Russia perceives itself as a Great Power and a near-peer of the USA, only recently stripped of superpower status. Many - me included - would say this is delusional, Russia is much closer to ex imperial states like France or Britain than China or the USA, nonetheless there is that streak in Russian thinking, and you can either handle it carefully, and avoid wars, and let Russia gently decline any road, or you can provoke the wounded Bear, and make it lash out, which helps no one. My suggestion - and it is only that - is that we maybe provoked Russia unwisely when we extended NATO to the Russian border
We could have been cleverer and got what wanted with a more emollient soothing of wounded Russian pride. Now we have half a million dead in Ukraine and a likely new Korea, divided for decades
You're rally attached to your Korea nonsense, aren't you ? The two conflicts are not remotely comparable. And neither will be their outcomes.
we maybe provoked Russia unwisely when we extended NATO to the Russian border What, Latvia and Estonia ?
We've tolerated the provocation of Kaliningrad since WWII.
Genuine question, because I don’t know the answer. Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities? Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification? Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics? Are we reducing the value of e.g. a law degree from Cambridge or an Engineering degree from Strathclyde by equating them to a Tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian? Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?
Further education and training is exceptionally valuable. But we need to look at the delivery of that. The concept of a “degree” for everything is wrong, IMHO. And indeed one of the things I disagreed with most re the New Labour government was the concept that more and more people should go to university, because that was inevitably the greatest pathway into well paid work.
We should be allowing people to pursue pathways into academia, skilled manual work, professions etc with the same resourcing and rigour, but not all those things need a degree from a university. And we need to divorce ourselves from the idea that having a degree from a university somehow sets one apart as having succeeded more than others.
The problem is now that the university sector is so strong it will be hard to reverse its significant growth in the last couple of decades.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
"Wah-wah, nobody agrees with my stupid alt-right opinions. Wah-wah, I'm going to flounce off if you're all going to point out the flaws in my posts. Wah-wah!"
Count yourself lucky. I’m actually giving you a second chance, which is more than you deserve, TBH
Sorry, missed all this. What are you trying to argue? That if Russia were America and Ukraine was Mexico and America was China, that Puti ... sorry Biden would do what Putin has done?
In which case ooo er. Very interesting. And you do have to wonder.
I never thought I’d be so glad to argue with @kinabalu!
But yes, that is what i am arguing. America absolutely perceives itself as an imperial power, AND still as THE superpower in many ways, and there is simply no way they would politically, economically or militarily accept Mexico uniting in an anti-American military alliance with Beijing. It is inconceivable, and any president that allowed this to happen would be utterly trounced in the consequent election
So, democratically it would not happen, either
I mean, America barely tolerates Chinese hegemony over the South China Sea and the near-Chinese Pacific, and we wonder if America would go to war over Taiwan
Mexico???? Get real
The wider point relates to Russian self-perception, In many ways Russia perceives itself as a Great Power and a near-peer of the USA, only recently stripped of superpower status. Many - me included - would say this is delusional, Russia is much closer to ex imperial states like France or Britain than China or the USA, nonetheless there is that streak in Russian thinking, and you can either handle it carefully, and avoid wars, and let Russia gently decline any road, or you can provoke the wounded Bear, and make it lash out, which helps no one. My suggestion - and it is only that - is that we maybe provoked Russia unwisely when we extended NATO to the Russian border
We could have been cleverer and got what wanted with a more emollient soothing of wounded Russian pride. Now we have half a million dead in Ukraine and a likely new Korea, divided for decades
Annoyingly, as I love a good argument, I find this hard to disagree with. But it’s all an argument about the past, and doesn’t address the point that Putin seems to take any compromise as sign of weakness. So given where we are, accepting a perceived ‘win’ for Russia at this stage is likely to take us further into the hole we’re in, rather than get us out of it.
Wind back 30 years, and I think you’d be onto something.
Genuine question, because I don’t know the answer. Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities? Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification? Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics? Are we reducing the value of e.g. a law degree from Cambridge or an Engineering degree from Strathclyde by equating them to a Tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian? Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?
IMHO, all answers requiring footnotes and commentary but:
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
Even a lack of gusto about killing tens of thousands of brown people is apparently a failing when it comes to Trump.
A lack of willingness to defend allies encourages those allies' enemies. It's not difficult.
I'm not advocating some neoCon rampage - I did actually oppose the Iraq War at the time. I am suggesting that he wouldn't use force even where it was justified.
(FWIW, I disagree that most administrations would intervene in Mexico if they signed a defensive alliance with China and established bases there. It's not 1961 any more).
How can someone as intelligent as you, think this??
imagine the presidential election following the Great Mexican-Chinese Alliance of 2025
“So you, president Kamala Harris, allowed Mexico to unite with our greatest enemy, and now America is threatened by Chinese trained troops and Chinese missiles stationed right across the Rio Grande, why should anyone vote for you, given that you’ve put Americans in direct danger for the first time since 1812?”
Who would win that election? It ain’t gonna be Kamala, is it?
FFS
Because I doubt China would be so crass as to do a Khrushchev, for one thing. They'd start with infrastructure facilities and 'advisors' rather than outright military bases.
I'm not suggesting Washington would like it. Indeed, as you suggest, it's possible it could be an election-loser - though foreign policy rarely decides elections, even foreign policy so close to home, and Harris is perfectly capable of losing an election by herself anyway. But the alternative? Military action? Against Chinese soldiers on the ground, without a provocation other than their presence alone? I think the days when that might have been (was) a viable option are over.
But I speculate; I could be wrong.
I’ll help you out. You’re wrong?
America would menace Mexico into submission within weeks. It wouldn’t even need to invade, it would strangle the Mexican economy, throw out Mexican citizens, freeze Mexican assets, it would provoke civil strife in Mexico and Mexico would yield fairly instantly
Chinese bases in Ciudad Juarez, with Chinese troops glaring at armed Texans in El Paso? Yeah, sure, no biggie
Genuine question, because I don’t know the answer. Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities? Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification? Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics? Are we reducing the value of e.g. a law degree from Cambridge or an Engineering degree from Strathclyde by equating them to a Tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian? Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?
Yes No Yes Don't think so, but it is a concern No
My answers are biased by age (going to Uni in 1973)
Genuine question, because I don’t know the answer. Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities? Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification? Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics? Are we reducing the value of e.g. a law degree from Cambridge or an Engineering degree from Strathclyde by equating them to a Tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian? Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?
IMHO, all answers requiring footnotes and commentary but:
Yes No Yes No No
Some people get the wrong idea about nursing degrees. Much of the time the student is doing the degree is clinical - i.e. on placement. Its not 3/4 years at uni doing book learning. Should nursing be a degree qualification? Arguably yes but then we now have many HCA's who do the bum wiping etc, so we have lots of classes of nurse.
"In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".
Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"
Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.
We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).
I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.
The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.
Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.
No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
People being able to choose their own news is one of the biggest problems. With traditional newspapers and TV news, you're forced to read or listen to a lot of news that you wouldn't necessarily choose to read or listen to. Sure, you can choose whether to buy the Guardian or the Daily Mail, but even within those pages there will be a lot of variety. But just clicking on what you feel like isn't a good idea. People are likely to just choose things they already agree with.
Yep. An example. I get post after post after post about how insurers are reacting to the "EV fire risk". But Thatcham - who the insurance industry use to certify automotive risk - say there is 11x more fire risk in a diesel than an EV, and 7x more for petrol.
So the insurance industry are saying *the opposite* of what people think. And a 2 minute google would find that information. But no, better to keep reposting the same fact-free guff because they want it to be true.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
Even a lack of gusto about killing tens of thousands of brown people is apparently a failing when it comes to Trump.
A lack of willingness to defend allies encourages those allies' enemies. It's not difficult.
I'm not advocating some neoCon rampage - I did actually oppose the Iraq War at the time. I am suggesting that he wouldn't use force even where it was justified.
(FWIW, I disagree that most administrations would intervene in Mexico if they signed a defensive alliance with China and established bases there. It's not 1961 any more).
How can someone as intelligent as you, think this??
imagine the presidential election following the Great Mexican-Chinese Alliance of 2025
“So you, president Kamala Harris, allowed Mexico to unite with our greatest enemy, and now America is threatened by Chinese trained troops and Chinese missiles stationed right across the Rio Grande, why should anyone vote for you, given that you’ve put Americans in direct danger for the first time since 1812?”
Who would win that election? It ain’t gonna be Kamala, is it?
FFS
Because I doubt China would be so crass as to do a Khrushchev, for one thing. They'd start with infrastructure facilities and 'advisors' rather than outright military bases.
I'm not suggesting Washington would like it. Indeed, as you suggest, it's possible it could be an election-loser - though foreign policy rarely decides elections, even foreign policy so close to home, and Harris is perfectly capable of losing an election by herself anyway. But the alternative? Military action? Against Chinese soldiers on the ground, without a provocation other than their presence alone? I think the days when that might have been (was) a viable option are over.
But I speculate; I could be wrong.
China has done quite a bit of investing and buying influence in Panama.
Genuine question, because I don’t know the answer. Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities? Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification? Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics? Are we reducing the value of e.g. a law degree from Cambridge or an Engineering degree from Strathclyde by equating them to a Tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian? Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?
1. Yes 2. No 3. Probably 4. Yes 5. No
The Spanish, discovering lots of gold and silver in South America, thought that they had made themselves rich. All they did was reduce the price. If you make a degree easier to get, you just reduce its worth.
Genuine question, because I don’t know the answer. Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities? Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification? Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics? Are we reducing the value of e.g. a law degree from Cambridge or an Engineering degree from Strathclyde by equating them to a Tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian? Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?
Further education and training is exceptionally valuable. But we need to look at the delivery of that. The concept of a “degree” for everything is wrong, IMHO. And indeed one of the things I disagreed with most re the New Labour government was the concept that more and more people should go to university, because that was inevitably the greatest pathway into well paid work.
We should be allowing people to pursue pathways into academia, skilled manual work, professions etc with the same resourcing and rigour, but not all those things need a degree from a university. And we need to divorce ourselves from the idea that having a degree from a university somehow sets one apart as having succeeded more than others.
The problem is now that the university sector is so strong it will be hard to reverse its significant growth in the last couple of decades.
The simplest solution is turning non-academic qualifications into degrees. So a highly qualified plumber has a PhD in plumbing.
This gets round the UniversityIndustrialComplex, and tackles the snobbery about vocational qualifications.
Labour lead unchanged at 23 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times
CON 22 (=) LAB 45 (=) LIB DEM 10 (+1) REF UK 11 (+1) GREEN 7 (=)
Bloody hell. Tories only on twice the support of RefUK.
At what level of support can RefUK expect to start winning seats, or is their vote just too evenly spread?
UKIP once won 15% of the national vote and returned one MP. I suspect it would be similar for RefUK, which has a similar composition and spread.
Yes, they'd need to get up to 20% to start having a realistic change of winning more than one or two seats.
I think they also need to have a bit of luck with some by elections in fertile ground (this probably matters more for the 2028/9 election then it does the next GE).
The Lib Dems do manage to get a bit of a boost in support, I think, by virtue of being a by election winning machine. The more they succeed at that, the more they look like they can win, the more people will cast a vote for them.
Reform’s chance will be in the next parliament in by elections in white working class seats if the Tories are in disarray and still look incompetent (v plausible) and Labour are still seen as not listening to their concerns. A couple of successful campaigns there, and it could boost them significantly in other areas, probably at the expense of the Tories as the 2019 vote will move more to Reform.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
Even a lack of gusto about killing tens of thousands of brown people is apparently a failing when it comes to Trump.
A lack of willingness to defend allies encourages those allies' enemies. It's not difficult.
I'm not advocating some neoCon rampage - I did actually oppose the Iraq War at the time. I am suggesting that he wouldn't use force even where it was justified.
(FWIW, I disagree that most administrations would intervene in Mexico if they signed a defensive alliance with China and established bases there. It's not 1961 any more).
How can someone as intelligent as you, think this??
imagine the presidential election following the Great Mexican-Chinese Alliance of 2025
“So you, president Kamala Harris, allowed Mexico to unite with our greatest enemy, and now America is threatened by Chinese trained troops and Chinese missiles stationed right across the Rio Grande, why should anyone vote for you, given that you’ve put Americans in direct danger for the first time since 1812?”
Who would win that election? It ain’t gonna be Kamala, is it?
FFS
Because I doubt China would be so crass as to do a Khrushchev, for one thing. They'd start with infrastructure facilities and 'advisors' rather than outright military bases.
I'm not suggesting Washington would like it. Indeed, as you suggest, it's possible it could be an election-loser - though foreign policy rarely decides elections, even foreign policy so close to home, and Harris is perfectly capable of losing an election by herself anyway. But the alternative? Military action? Against Chinese soldiers on the ground, without a provocation other than their presence alone? I think the days when that might have been (was) a viable option are over.
But I speculate; I could be wrong.
China has done quite a bit of investing and buying influence in Panama.
And the Soviet empire spent a great deal of time and effort in Latin America. The U.S. response was generally subversion, rather than invasion - Cuba being a messy exception which didn't turn out well for them.
Labour lead unchanged at 23 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times
CON 22 (=) LAB 45 (=) LIB DEM 10 (+1) REF UK 11 (+1) GREEN 7 (=)
Bloody hell. Tories only on twice the support of RefUK.
At what level of support can RefUK expect to start winning seats, or is their vote just too evenly spread?
UKIP won 12.6% of the vote in 2015 (or 12.9% of the GB vote) and won only one seat - and that one they already held due to a defection, albeit what would have been perhaps their natural number one target had they not held it.
Unless Reform can generate some unusual local presence within 12 months somewhere, I'd suggest they'd need to be finishing comfortably top-side of 15% to win anywhere.
One problem they have is that many of their natural top targets are either ultra-safe Tory ones that should survive even an epic Labour win (Fenland etc), or Red Wall, where Labour will perform strongly. So somewhere like Barnsley Central, where BxP won 30% in 2019, is likely to revert to Labour first - though somewhere like that could easily be a Reform by-election gain under a Starmer govt.
Mr. B, yeah, that's a fair point and something I missed. However, the US didn't occupy the whole of Mexico and hold onto it until a few decades ago. And there was much contention over the state of Texas (which had declared independence from Mexico) and a related treaty. And it was a century and a half ago, rather than a couple of years ago.
Applying modern norms to the past few years may make sense. Doing so for the mid-19th century rather less so.
Edited extra bit: although this is a side issue, given the main bone of contention is Mr. Leon's wrongful view that Lithuania is somehow a natural part of Russia.
You could even argue on a historical basis (though I won't) that Ukraine is a natural part of Lithuania. Which would be an easy way to get it into NATO.
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
"Wah-wah, nobody agrees with my stupid alt-right opinions. Wah-wah, I'm going to flounce off if you're all going to point out the flaws in my posts. Wah-wah!"
Count yourself lucky. I’m actually giving you a second chance, which is more than you deserve, TBH
Sorry, missed all this. What are you trying to argue? That if Russia were America and Ukraine was Mexico and America was China, that Puti ... sorry Biden would do what Putin has done?
In which case ooo er. Very interesting. And you do have to wonder.
I never thought I’d be so glad to argue with @kinabalu!
But yes, that is what i am arguing. America absolutely perceives itself as an imperial power, AND still as THE superpower in many ways, and there is simply no way they would politically, economically or militarily accept Mexico uniting in an anti-American military alliance with Beijing. It is inconceivable, and any president that allowed this to happen would be utterly trounced in the consequent election
So, democratically it would not happen, either
I mean, America barely tolerates Chinese hegemony over the South China Sea and the near-Chinese Pacific, and we wonder if America would go to war over Taiwan
Mexico???? Get real
The wider point relates to Russian self-perception, In many ways Russia perceives itself as a Great Power and a near-peer of the USA, only recently stripped of superpower status. Many - me included - would say this is delusional, Russia is much closer to ex imperial states like France or Britain than China or the USA, nonetheless there is that streak in Russian thinking, and you can either handle it carefully, and avoid wars, and let Russia gently decline any road, or you can provoke the wounded Bear, and make it lash out, which helps no one. My suggestion - and it is only that - is that we maybe provoked Russia unwisely when we extended NATO to the Russian border
We could have been cleverer and got what wanted with a more emollient soothing of wounded Russian pride. Now we have half a million dead in Ukraine and a likely new Korea, divided for decades
Annoyingly, as I love a good argument, I find this hard to disagree with. But it’s all an argument about the past, and doesn’t address the point that Putin seems to take any compromise as sign of weakness. So given where we are, accepting a perceived ‘win’ for Russia at this stage is likely to take us further into the hole we’re in, rather than get us out of it.
Wind back 30 years, and I think you’d be onto something.
If the West had welcomed Russia into NATO and all Western institutions after the fall of the Berlin wall the past 30 years would have been remarkably different. Instead they told Russia that they (the West, specifically the US) would be happy to be the world's only policeman thank you very much.
Does not excuse Russia's actions but explains them. I'll leave Mexico to one side but there is definitely a perspective from Russia which believes it is being encircled.
"To understand Russia’s claims of betrayal, it is necessary to review the reassurances then US secretary of state James A. Baker made to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990. In a discussion on the status of a reunited Germany, the two men agreed that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17 that same year in Brussels.
Russia and the West finally struck an agreement in September that would allow NATO to station its troops beyond the Iron Curtain. However, the deal only concerned a reunified Germany, with further eastward expansion being inconceivable at the time."
Labour lead unchanged at 23 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times
CON 22 (=) LAB 45 (=) LIB DEM 10 (+1) REF UK 11 (+1) GREEN 7 (=)
Bloody hell. Tories only on twice the support of RefUK.
At what level of support can RefUK expect to start winning seats, or is their vote just too evenly spread?
No level that they can achieve a seat unless there are special circumstances in a seat (like a popular former Tory MP standing for them, or, outside chance, Farage).
To win a seat they have to beat (obvs) the Tory and Labour. In safe Tory seats the barrier is too high, and lots of Tory votes go to Labour/LD instead; in more marginal seats Labour/(occasionally LD) will sweep both Reform and Tory away.
Outside the world of polling no-one has heard of Reform.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
Even a lack of gusto about killing tens of thousands of brown people is apparently a failing when it comes to Trump.
A lack of willingness to defend allies encourages those allies' enemies. It's not difficult.
I'm not advocating some neoCon rampage - I did actually oppose the Iraq War at the time. I am suggesting that he wouldn't use force even where it was justified.
(FWIW, I disagree that most administrations would intervene in Mexico if they signed a defensive alliance with China and established bases there. It's not 1961 any more).
How can someone as intelligent as you, think this??
imagine the presidential election following the Great Mexican-Chinese Alliance of 2025
“So you, president Kamala Harris, allowed Mexico to unite with our greatest enemy, and now America is threatened by Chinese trained troops and Chinese missiles stationed right across the Rio Grande, why should anyone vote for you, given that you’ve put Americans in direct danger for the first time since 1812?”
Who would win that election? It ain’t gonna be Kamala, is it?
FFS
Because I doubt China would be so crass as to do a Khrushchev, for one thing. They'd start with infrastructure facilities and 'advisors' rather than outright military bases.
I'm not suggesting Washington would like it. Indeed, as you suggest, it's possible it could be an election-loser - though foreign policy rarely decides elections, even foreign policy so close to home, and Harris is perfectly capable of losing an election by herself anyway. But the alternative? Military action? Against Chinese soldiers on the ground, without a provocation other than their presence alone? I think the days when that might have been (was) a viable option are over.
But I speculate; I could be wrong.
I’ll help you out. You’re wrong?
America would menace Mexico into submission within weeks. It wouldn’t even need to invade, it would strangle the Mexican economy, throw out Mexican citizens, freeze Mexican assets, it would provoke civil strife in Mexico and Mexico would yield fairly instantly
Chinese bases in Ciudad Juarez, with Chinese troops glaring at armed Texans in El Paso? Yeah, sure, no biggie
But those are non-military responses - and I agree, that's very much what it would be likely to do.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Putin was playing a game? You know, the sort of thing he's been doing for the last couple of decades?
Gorbachev and Putin made approaches to NATO to join. As many commentaries point out, NATO, fresh from its Cold War victory, said fuck off. As was famously said by some US General or other, don't worry we are going to be the world's policeman from now and we don't need any help from you.
Ah I see the 'nuance' that goes curiously missing when you're doing 'Israel Good, Palestine Bad' is back on display. Jolly good.
You misunderstand. As usual. You think this is a huge gotcha whereas it is someone, me, seeking to understand the causes of each conflict.
Understanding the causes of something doesn't mean sympathy or antipathy. It means understanding. I understand the Russia and NATO and Ukraine perspectives and I understand the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives. In fact even someone with as limited perspicacity as you could do this also. It is then a matter of assessing one's views on it all.
I could sit here and argue all day the Palestinian position, although I would struggle with some of their actions and responses to events, but I would make a fair fist of it.
I then can weigh up which position I agree with.
If you had the self-confidence in your own views you would understand what I mean. But you don't so you don't.
It's not a Gotcha, god no, it's just a (moderately acute) observation. You know how I like to make them from time to time. As for affecting a strident certainty in one's own 'views'. No I don't strain for that. That's a fair cop.
Russia is no longer a great power, so why should the rest of us pretend that it is?
Russia isn't a great economic power no but it still has the biggest military in Europe and more nuclear weapons than any other nation on earth
Labour lead unchanged at 23 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times
CON 22 (=) LAB 45 (=) LIB DEM 10 (+1) REF UK 11 (+1) GREEN 7 (=)
Bloody hell. Tories only on twice the support of RefUK.
At what level of support can RefUK expect to start winning seats, or is their vote just too evenly spread?
UKIP once won 15% of the national vote and returned one MP. I suspect it would be similar for RefUK, which has a similar composition and spread.
Yes, they'd need to get up to 20% to start having a realistic change of winning more than one or two seats.
They would at least need to overtake the Tories in a few seats so they then become the main alternative to Labour there as the LDs are the main alternative to the Tories in a few southern seats
Genuine question, because I don’t know the answer. Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities? Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification? Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics? Are we reducing the value of e.g. a law degree from Cambridge or an Engineering degree from Strathclyde by equating them to a Tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian? Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?
Further education and training is exceptionally valuable. But we need to look at the delivery of that. The concept of a “degree” for everything is wrong, IMHO. And indeed one of the things I disagreed with most re the New Labour government was the concept that more and more people should go to university, because that was inevitably the greatest pathway into well paid work.
We should be allowing people to pursue pathways into academia, skilled manual work, professions etc with the same resourcing and rigour, but not all those things need a degree from a university. And we need to divorce ourselves from the idea that having a degree from a university somehow sets one apart as having succeeded more than others.
The problem is now that the university sector is so strong it will be hard to reverse its significant growth in the last couple of decades.
The simplest solution is turning non-academic qualifications into degrees. So a highly qualified plumber has a PhD in plumbing.
This gets round the UniversityIndustrialComplex, and tackles the snobbery about vocational qualifications.
I understand that concept and I can understand its attractiveness, though I come down on the other side of it because I think the very concept of “degree” feeds what you call the UniversityIndustrialComplex (I love this term!) and actually what we need to be doing is getting people away from always equating degrees with a particular sort of success. Why shouldn’t someone who has an apprenticeship diploma or similar be considered ‘lesser’ than someone with a qualification badged as a ‘degree’?
Genuine question, because I don’t know the answer. Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities? Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification? Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics? Are we reducing the value of e.g. a law degree from Cambridge or an Engineering degree from Strathclyde by equating them to a Tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian? Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?
Further education and training is exceptionally valuable. But we need to look at the delivery of that. The concept of a “degree” for everything is wrong, IMHO. And indeed one of the things I disagreed with most re the New Labour government was the concept that more and more people should go to university, because that was inevitably the greatest pathway into well paid work.
We should be allowing people to pursue pathways into academia, skilled manual work, professions etc with the same resourcing and rigour, but not all those things need a degree from a university. And we need to divorce ourselves from the idea that having a degree from a university somehow sets one apart as having succeeded more than others.
The problem is now that the university sector is so strong it will be hard to reverse its significant growth in the last couple of decades.
The simplest solution is turning non-academic qualifications into degrees. So a highly qualified plumber has a PhD in plumbing.
This gets round the UniversityIndustrialComplex, and tackles the snobbery about vocational qualifications.
The average plumber neither has nor wants a degree, they know that they can charge and earn more than half of graduates will ever earn anyway and without having tuition fees to repay
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
"Wah-wah, nobody agrees with my stupid alt-right opinions. Wah-wah, I'm going to flounce off if you're all going to point out the flaws in my posts. Wah-wah!"
Count yourself lucky. I’m actually giving you a second chance, which is more than you deserve, TBH
Sorry, missed all this. What are you trying to argue? That if Russia were America and Ukraine was Mexico and America was China, that Puti ... sorry Biden would do what Putin has done?
In which case ooo er. Very interesting. And you do have to wonder.
I never thought I’d be so glad to argue with @kinabalu!
But yes, that is what i am arguing. America absolutely perceives itself as an imperial power, AND still as THE superpower in many ways, and there is simply no way they would politically, economically or militarily accept Mexico uniting in an anti-American military alliance with Beijing. It is inconceivable, and any president that allowed this to happen would be utterly trounced in the consequent election
So, democratically it would not happen, either
I mean, America barely tolerates Chinese hegemony over the South China Sea and the near-Chinese Pacific, and we wonder if America would go to war over Taiwan
Mexico???? Get real
The wider point relates to Russian self-perception, In many ways Russia perceives itself as a Great Power and a near-peer of the USA, only recently stripped of superpower status. Many - me included - would say this is delusional, Russia is much closer to ex imperial states like France or Britain than China or the USA, nonetheless there is that streak in Russian thinking, and you can either handle it carefully, and avoid wars, and let Russia gently decline any road, or you can provoke the wounded Bear, and make it lash out, which helps no one. My suggestion - and it is only that - is that we maybe provoked Russia unwisely when we extended NATO to the Russian border
We could have been cleverer and got what wanted with a more emollient soothing of wounded Russian pride. Now we have half a million dead in Ukraine and a likely new Korea, divided for decades
Annoyingly, as I love a good argument, I find this hard to disagree with. But it’s all an argument about the past, and doesn’t address the point that Putin seems to take any compromise as sign of weakness. So given where we are, accepting a perceived ‘win’ for Russia at this stage is likely to take us further into the hole we’re in, rather than get us out of it.
Wind back 30 years, and I think you’d be onto something.
If the West had welcomed Russia into NATO and all Western institutions after the fall of the Berlin wall the past 30 years would have been remarkably different. Instead they told Russia that they (the West, specifically the US) would be happy to be the world's only policeman thank you very much.
Does not excuse Russia's actions but explains them. I'll leave Mexico to one side but there is definitely a perspective from Russia which believes it is being encircled.
"To understand Russia’s claims of betrayal, it is necessary to review the reassurances then US secretary of state James A. Baker made to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990. In a discussion on the status of a reunited Germany, the two men agreed that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17 that same year in Brussels.
Russia and the West finally struck an agreement in September that would allow NATO to station its troops beyond the Iron Curtain. However, the deal only concerned a reunified Germany, with further eastward expansion being inconceivable at the time."
Yes, and I have some sympathy for those in Russia arguing this. I also have sympathy for the argument that the world only got Putin (or at least kept him for so long) because NATO backed Russia into a corner.
But this still doesn’t address what we do now, given that we have decent evidence that the mafia boss in charge of Russia will keep pushing towards a Greater Russian empire for his own domestic political reasons.
Comments
- It means they don't have to do something they finally sussed was impractical.
- They can not do it without ratting on their coalition colleagues in the SGreens.
- They have a stick to beat London with.
Oh wait, it's Sunak we're talking about.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americans-broadly-support-military-strikes-mexico-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2023-09-14/
Firstly, as we all do in a discussion, we tend to exaggerate our position, which is what I did. Obviously I don't think that Cambridge will crumble due to only duff British fellows being appointed while all the brilliant foreigners are lost. And I also agree there is a lot of luck involved in getting on, as well as ability as you pointed out. However in STEM subjects, particularly those with a strong mathematical element I believe it is pretty easy to discriminate between the best and second best and it just so happened I knew of a current example and had actually read the offer so knew that it was considerably below the £38k level so how could I not respond to hyufd's original post. I mean I just had to didn't I?
The only flaw was thankfully she now has a British passport so won't be thrown out on her ear. If we do prevent brilliant academics from taking up positions at our Universities because of this rule it really will be truly idiotic. My son and his girlfriend are truly brilliant. If she didn't have a British passport she would have to leave and he would follow.
I don’t expect them to.
Ukraine Tracker Update: New aid commitments since August 2023 collapsed . The past 3 months saw the lowest amount of new pledges since the start of the war. The €50bn EU package (the big peak in June 👇) is crucial. If vetoed, UKR could be (almost) without aid in 2024.🧵
https://twitter.com/Ch_Trebesch/status/1732752778085167157
The Mexico example is flawed on another, more important count.
Russia, centred on Moscow, started gobbling up grand duchies and the like after the Golden Horde were defeated. Previously, Kyiv had been the heartland of the Rus. Russia's imperialist tendencies led to it seeking dominion over other nearby nations, including the Baltic Tigers.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are not Russian realms that have broken free. They're independent countries that were held behind the Iron Curtain by force and the threat of force. They willingly sought NATO protection because they were acutely aware of Russia's imperialist attitude towards invading neighbouring nations.
Mexico has not recently freed itself from the USA, which never conquered it or held it by force and the threat of force. There's no prospect of the US invading Mexico, or Canada. If Canada or Mexico agreed to host Chinese military forces and join a Sino version of NATO that would be entirely different to the situation in the Baltic.
I do not buy the claim these people suddenly become far more productive as a result. These claims are usually put forward by the advocates of said policies. Effectively marking their own homework. There is alot of that going in policy making these days.
I have said before, in other threads, something needs to be done about local govt funding from central govt. The cuts cannot go on. There are only so many "efficiencies" that can be made. I am hoping a new govt under SKS grasps the nettle on this. It is pointless cutting NI only for that cut to be taken up by increase local govt taxes.
As for the claims the pay is crap. What are people in these roles paid and how does that compare to the private sector. What about the fringe benefits too, which are part of a compensation package. Such as extra holidays and better pensions ?
The US conquered Mexico in the US-Mexican war of 1846-48, and America occupied Mexico City
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War
https://tinyurl.com/d7r2u65
Jesus, I’m arguing with idiots, aren’t I? Historically illiterate idiots. What is the fucking point? Life is short
http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/chrono/1774invasion_repelled_e.html
Plus Rishi losing Monday's vote would be seriously funny and show the pointlessness of the approach they've used...
I'm not advocating some neoCon rampage - I did actually oppose the Iraq War at the time. I am suggesting that he wouldn't use force even where it was justified.
(FWIW, I disagree that most administrations would intervene in Mexico if they signed a defensive alliance with China and established bases there. It's not 1961 any more).
imagine the presidential election following the Great Mexican-Chinese Alliance of 2025
“So you, president Kamala Harris, allowed Mexico to unite with our greatest enemy, and now America is threatened by Chinese trained troops and Chinese missiles stationed right across the Rio Grande, why should anyone vote for you, given that you’ve put Americans in direct danger for the first time since 1812?”
Who would win that election? It ain’t gonna be Kamala, is it?
FFS
At the point the Tories could start a 10 year programme, in opposition, of sorting out their principles, objectives, policies and aims. Some of would like to know what they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Nation_Conservatives_(caucus)
I need someone remotely intelligent and knowledgeable to argue with, this is like potato printing at a Montessori
How about you address my much more relevant, and unfortunately all too common, analogy:
"Here's a better analogy to your 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife at fault for 'poking her bear' of a husband? Was she fuck."
Now I am sober it is quite shocking to see. SHAPE UP, PB, OR I’M OFF TO REDDIT
Otherwise, another devastating swish of the sabre, I am cut to the bone
I come on here to joust with my peers, not slap away ridiculous toddlers who are eating the crayons
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War
Did the US conquer Mexico in 1945, then hold onto it until compelled to withdraw about half a century later? Are you comparing apples with oranges? The world has, in some ways, thankfully improved since the 19th century. Unless you're a Russian imperialist.
If you want to go back to the 19th century, fine. But Lithuania (depending how you define it) is about a thousand years old. A few decades under Soviet Dominion doesn't make it a natural part of Russia.
You also missed out that most Texans wanted to be part of the USA. And that the Mexicans were not recognising (a contentious) treaty regarding Texas' right to determine its own future and still maintained that Texas was their territory.
By contrast, the Russian invasions of Ukraine also fail to recognise the treaty to sustain Ukraine's borders (laughably, the Russian state is one such guarantor). And the Ukrainians don't want to be Russian. The idea Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia would not be at dire risk of invasion if they weren't in NATO is optimistic at best.
In which case ooo er. Very interesting. And you do have to wonder.
I may have to fold my tents, doff my armour, and tell the squire to go home to his bairns
Applying modern norms to the past few years may make sense. Doing so for the mid-19th century rather less so.
Edited extra bit: although this is a side issue, given the main bone of contention is Mr. Leon's wrongful view that Lithuania is somehow a natural part of Russia.
Leon, you really do put the tit in titan.
The only thing I can think of is to do like the Israelis in Gaza. You destroy the entire population.
Any alternative?
Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities?
Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification?
Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics?
Are we reducing the value of e.g. a law degree from Cambridge or an Engineering degree from Strathclyde by equating them to a Tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian?
Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?
I'm not suggesting Washington would like it. Indeed, as you suggest, it's possible it could be an election-loser - though foreign policy rarely decides elections, even foreign policy so close to home, and Harris is perfectly capable of losing an election by herself anyway. But the alternative? Military action? Against Chinese soldiers on the ground, without a provocation other than their presence alone? I think the days when that might have been (was) a viable option are over.
But I speculate; I could be wrong.
But yes, that is what i am arguing. America absolutely perceives itself as an imperial power, AND still as THE superpower in many ways, and there is simply no way they would politically, economically or militarily accept Mexico uniting in an anti-American military alliance with Beijing. It is inconceivable, and any president that allowed this to happen would be utterly trounced in the consequent election
So, democratically it would not happen, either
I mean, America barely tolerates Chinese hegemony over the South China Sea and the near-Chinese Pacific, and we wonder if America would go to war over Taiwan
Mexico???? Get real
The wider point relates to Russian self-perception, In many ways Russia perceives itself as a Great Power and a near-peer of the USA, only recently stripped of superpower status. Many - me included - would say this is delusional, Russia is much closer to ex imperial states like France or Britain than China or the USA, nonetheless there is that streak in Russian thinking, and you can either handle it carefully, and avoid wars, and let Russia gently decline any road, or you can provoke the wounded Bear, and make it lash out, which helps no one. My suggestion - and it is only that - is that we maybe provoked Russia unwisely when we extended NATO to the Russian border
We could have been cleverer and got what wanted with a more emollient soothing of wounded Russian pride. Now we have half a million dead in Ukraine and a likely new Korea, divided for decades
The two conflicts are not remotely comparable. And neither will be their outcomes.
we maybe provoked Russia unwisely when we extended NATO to the Russian border
What, Latvia and Estonia ?
We've tolerated the provocation of Kaliningrad since WWII.
We should be allowing people to pursue pathways into academia, skilled manual work, professions etc with the same resourcing and rigour, but not all those things need a degree from a university. And we need to divorce ourselves from the idea that having a degree from a university somehow sets one apart as having succeeded more than others.
The problem is now that the university sector is so strong it will be hard to reverse its significant growth in the last couple of decades.
Wind back 30 years, and I think you’d be onto something.
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
America would menace Mexico into submission within weeks. It wouldn’t even need to invade, it would strangle the Mexican economy, throw out Mexican citizens, freeze Mexican assets, it would provoke civil strife in Mexico and Mexico would yield fairly instantly
Chinese bases in Ciudad Juarez, with Chinese troops glaring at armed Texans in El Paso? Yeah, sure, no biggie
No
Yes
Don't think so, but it is a concern
No
My answers are biased by age (going to Uni in 1973)
Should nursing be a degree qualification? Arguably yes but then we now have many HCA's who do the bum wiping etc, so we have lots of classes of nurse.
So the insurance industry are saying *the opposite* of what people think. And a 2 minute google would find that information. But no, better to keep reposting the same fact-free guff because they want it to be true.
Hi Leon *waves*
2. No
3. Probably
4. Yes
5. No
The Spanish, discovering lots of gold and silver in South America, thought that they had made themselves rich. All they did was reduce the price. If you make a degree easier to get, you just reduce its worth.
This gets round the UniversityIndustrialComplex, and tackles the snobbery about vocational qualifications.
The Lib Dems do manage to get a bit of a boost in support, I think, by virtue of being a by election winning machine. The more they succeed at that, the more they look like they can win, the more people will cast a vote for them.
Reform’s chance will be in the next parliament in by elections in white working class seats if the Tories are in disarray and still look incompetent (v plausible) and Labour are still seen as not listening to their concerns. A couple of successful campaigns there, and it could boost them significantly in other areas, probably at the expense of the Tories as the 2019 vote will move more to Reform.
Unless Reform can generate some unusual local presence within 12 months somewhere, I'd suggest they'd need to be finishing comfortably top-side of 15% to win anywhere.
One problem they have is that many of their natural top targets are either ultra-safe Tory ones that should survive even an epic Labour win (Fenland etc), or Red Wall, where Labour will perform strongly. So somewhere like Barnsley Central, where BxP won 30% in 2019, is likely to revert to Labour first - though somewhere like that could easily be a Reform by-election gain under a Starmer govt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lithuania#/media/File:Lithuanian_state_in_13-15th_centuries.png
Does not excuse Russia's actions but explains them. I'll leave Mexico to one side but there is definitely a perspective from Russia which believes it is being encircled.
https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
"To understand Russia’s claims of betrayal, it is necessary to review the reassurances then US secretary of state James A. Baker made to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990. In a discussion on the status of a reunited Germany, the two men agreed that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17 that same year in Brussels.
Russia and the West finally struck an agreement in September that would allow NATO to station its troops beyond the Iron Curtain. However, the deal only concerned a reunified Germany, with further eastward expansion being inconceivable at the time."
To win a seat they have to beat (obvs) the Tory and Labour. In safe Tory seats the barrier is too high, and lots of Tory votes go to Labour/LD instead; in more marginal seats Labour/(occasionally LD) will sweep both Reform and Tory away.
Outside the world of polling no-one has heard of Reform.
But this still doesn’t address what we do now, given that we have decent evidence that the mafia boss in charge of Russia will keep pushing towards a Greater Russian empire for his own domestic political reasons.