"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".
Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me
It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess
People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
What do you make of Donald Trump saying people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' as very fine people?
I wonder why you never spammed PB about that particular brand of antisemitism.
It’s not very interesting though?
Most people realise that Trump is a deeply unpleasant man who is potentially very dangerous. I wasn’t aware that he is anti-Semitic but I am wholly unsurprised.
What would @Leon repeating that add to the debate?
I’d be amazed if Trump is personally anti Semitic
He’s a narcissistic New York billionaire deal maker. He’s spent his whole life hanging out with Jews. I imagine he rather admires their business moxy and chutzpah. And he certainly didn’t mind chilling out with Epstein and Co
However he’s an amoral egomaniac and he’s quite capable of utilising anti Semitism if it suits him
Another reason to doubt Donald Trump's antisemitism is his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish.
I think part of the problem here, for PB, is an inability to put yourself in an imperialist mindset. That is perhaps understandable for Europeans who have been culturally defensive and full of cringe since at least WW2, if not 100 years or more
Americans (and Chinese, increasingly, and Russians, decreasingly but still) DO have an imperialist mindset. Might makes right, fuck it, this is our territory, our sphere of influence, we do what we need to do, who is going to stop us?
Britain up to about 1910 absolutely had this mindset, France perhaps to 1870 (though cowed by Britain at sea), but arguably in the era of the Sun King before his dynasty was eclipsed by England
China felt able to take and subdue Hong Kong. It did so, despite all those treaties and promises. It will probably do the same to Taiwan, in the next few years (tho it will be much more problematic)
America as the still pre-eminent power entirely has this mindset. ESPECIALLY in North America. It is the imperial backyard, it belongs to America. The mere trafficking of drugs over the border has America talking of invasion - Chinese soldiers and bases??
Probably the equivalent for imperial Britain would be if Ireland somehow became independent in the 19th century and then the French started building naval bases in Cork and Dublin in about 1855. As a direct threat to the British imperium we would absolutely have invaded Ireland and driven the Frogs out. And quite right too
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’?
Spin the telescope round.
Knowledge is good. Learning is good. Reward learning in all disciplines equally according to the level and depth of the knowledge gained. Using the same terminology.
See the creation of the nursing degree. Because training a nurse involves years of study, practicals, exams etc. The degree bit is just labelling.
Calling them degrees is just easier, historically.
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.
The question was about 'requirement'; ie 100% graduate entry. To which I say 'No'. There is nothing wrong with nursing degrees, and everything right with them. BTW there are non-graduate routes to being a solicitor, a good thing, but doesn't mean there is anything wrong with Cambridge law degrees.
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 - and colleagues - must produce highly employable PhD students
But yes, some have moved long distances for short term posts. We're fairly lucky here in that Leeds, York, Hull, Bradford and even Manchester can be viable options for couples looking for post-doc positions and not finding posts at the same uni while still living together - and in my field there are NHS jobs, too) but others have had to go further.
For some, single mid-20s, the chance to move somewhere completely different for a couple of years is quite appealing. Much less so for those with partners/family.
It would be nice to think that the Nigel wins election this time. He represents a clear and ultimately sizeable (4m votes in 2015) seam of British society and their votes need to actually deliver them representation for once.
The Brexit anger has now morphed into the boats anger. Same issue as this seam of society voted Brexit to get rid of foreigners. If they can coalesce that anger into a suitable seat or two then yes, reFUK could pick up some seats.
The question of course is where. As tempting as it would be to suggest the land that time forgot (Stoke on Trent) or somewhere truly lost like Grimsby, I suspect its more likely to be in southern England. Thanet again?
"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".
Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me
It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess
People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
What do you make of Donald Trump saying people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' as very fine people?
I wonder why you never spammed PB about that particular brand of antisemitism.
It’s not very interesting though?
Most people realise that Trump is a deeply unpleasant man who is potentially very dangerous. I wasn’t aware that he is anti-Semitic but I am wholly unsurprised.
What would @Leon repeating that add to the debate?
I’d be amazed if Trump is personally anti Semitic
He’s a narcissistic New York billionaire deal maker. He’s spent his whole life hanging out with Jews. I imagine he rather admires their business moxy and chutzpah. And he certainly didn’t mind chilling out with Epstein and Co
However he’s an amoral egomaniac and he’s quite capable of utilising anti Semitism if it suits him
Another reason to doubt Donald Trump's antisemitism is his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish.
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?
"Working-age graduates and postgraduates continue to have higher employment rates than non-graduates. The employment rates for both graduates and postgraduates increased in 2022 compared to 2021, with postgraduates having the largest increase. There was a small decrease in employment rates for working-age non-graduates. [...]
"In 2022, the employment rate for working-age graduates (those aged 16 - 64) was 87.3%, an increase of 0.6 percentage points on 2021 (86.6%). For working-age postgraduates, the employment rate was 89.3%, an increase of 1.1 percentage points on 2021 (88.2%). For working-age non-graduates, the employment rate was 69.6%, a decrease of 0.2 percentage points from 2021 (69.8%).
"In 2022, 66.3% of working-age graduates were in high-skilled employment, compared to 78.3% of postgraduates and 23.6% of non-graduates. In 2022, the percentage of working-age graduates and postgraduates in high-skilled employment was 1.1 percentage points higher than in 2021. The percentage of working-age non-graduates in high-skilled employment increased by 0.2 percentage points compared to 2021.
"In 2022, the median nominal salary for working-age graduates was £38,500. This was £11,500 more than working-age non-graduates (£27,000), but £6,500 less than working-age postgraduates (£45,000). In nominal terms, salaries increased for all groups. However, in real terms (2007 prices, using CPI-H), salaries for graduates and non-graduates remained the same from 2021 to 2022, whilst postgraduates saw a decrease of £1,000. The gap between the median salaries of graduates and non-graduates has increased by £1,000 since 2021 in nominal terms and by £500 in real terms."
So, university attendance remains associated with better economic outcomes.
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?
"Should e.g. nursing require a degree level entrance qualification?" Nursing used not to require a degree-level qualification, but nurses still received extensive training. It's partly just that we now recognise that training as warranting the award of a bachelor's degree. I think it's good to recognise the technical skills and knowledge that modern nurses have to master.
"Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics?" A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The conversion from polytechnics to universities happened a long time ago and I'm not certain what would actually be achieved by reversing it. I think it is widely recognised that we have a diversity of university types, whatever you call them. Perhaps the question, and the previous one about nursing, is really more about how we teach certain subject. Should we shift away from a classroom model for certain types of skill?
In the past, more people did apprenticeships, but the economic system where people would stay with one firm and one profession for a long time simply doesn't exist any more. Modern companies are frequently not interested in this sort of long-term investment in staff.
"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?" In practice, do you think anyone does confuse a law degree from Cambridge with a tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian?
"Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?" We live in a highly complex and technical world. Potential areas of economic growth for our nation do not lie in more people tilling the land or manning a production line any more. The knowledge economy is king.
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...
That is called begging the question.
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly. How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
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?
"Working-age graduates and postgraduates continue to have higher employment rates than non-graduates. The employment rates for both graduates and postgraduates increased in 2022 compared to 2021, with postgraduates having the largest increase. There was a small decrease in employment rates for working-age non-graduates. [...]
"In 2022, the employment rate for working-age graduates (those aged 16 - 64) was 87.3%, an increase of 0.6 percentage points on 2021 (86.6%). For working-age postgraduates, the employment rate was 89.3%, an increase of 1.1 percentage points on 2021 (88.2%). For working-age non-graduates, the employment rate was 69.6%, a decrease of 0.2 percentage points from 2021 (69.8%).
"In 2022, 66.3% of working-age graduates were in high-skilled employment, compared to 78.3% of postgraduates and 23.6% of non-graduates. In 2022, the percentage of working-age graduates and postgraduates in high-skilled employment was 1.1 percentage points higher than in 2021. The percentage of working-age non-graduates in high-skilled employment increased by 0.2 percentage points compared to 2021.
"In 2022, the median nominal salary for working-age graduates was £38,500. This was £11,500 more than working-age non-graduates (£27,000), but £6,500 less than working-age postgraduates (£45,000). In nominal terms, salaries increased for all groups. However, in real terms (2007 prices, using CPI-H), salaries for graduates and non-graduates remained the same from 2021 to 2022, whilst postgraduates saw a decrease of £1,000. The gap between the median salaries of graduates and non-graduates has increased by £1,000 since 2021 in nominal terms and by £500 in real terms."
So, university attendance remains associated with better economic outcomes.
Yes but higher salaries for graduates does not prove universities helped. It is just that what would have been A-level jobs are now graduate jobs, and what were A-level school-leavers now go on to university.
I think part of the problem here, for PB, is an inability to put yourself in an imperialist mindset. That is perhaps understandable for Europeans who have been culturally defensive and full of cringe since at least WW2, if not 100 years or more
Americans (and Chinese, increasingly, and Russians, decreasingly but still) DO have an imperialist mindset. Might makes right, fuck it, this is our territory, our sphere of influence, we do what we need to do, who is going to stop us?
Britain up to about 1910 absolutely had this mindset, France perhaps to 1870 (though cowed by Britain at sea), but arguably in the era of the Sun King before his dynasty was eclipsed by England
China felt able to take and subdue Hong Kong. It did so, despite all those treaties and promises. It will probably do the same to Taiwan, in the next few years (tho it will be much more problematic)
America as the still pre-eminent power entirely has this mindset. ESPECIALLY in North America. It is the imperial backyard, it belongs to America. The mere trafficking of drugs over the border has America talking of invasion - Chinese soldiers and bases??
Probably the equivalent for imperial Britain would be if Ireland somehow became independent in the 19th century and then the French started building naval bases in Cork and Dublin in about 1855. As a direct threat to the British imperium we would absolutely have invaded Ireland and driven the Frogs out. And quite right too
Any power of any size had an imperial mindset up till 1950 or so.
Right of Conquest was an accepted term of international law.
And, the USA and China certainly act as if the strong do as they will, the weak as they must.
Russia’s problem is it’s not really one of the strong, any longer. If Russia was still the kick-arse power of 1945, we’d just have to accept that Eastern Europe is theirs
I think part of the problem here, for PB, is an inability to put yourself in an imperialist mindset. That is perhaps understandable for Europeans who have been culturally defensive and full of cringe since at least WW2, if not 100 years or more
Americans (and Chinese, increasingly, and Russians, decreasingly but still) DO have an imperialist mindset. Might makes right, fuck it, this is our territory, our sphere of influence, we do what we need to do, who is going to stop us?
Britain up to about 1910 absolutely had this mindset, France perhaps to 1870 (though cowed by Britain at sea), but arguably in the era of the Sun King before his dynasty was eclipsed by England
China felt able to take and subdue Hong Kong. It did so, despite all those treaties and promises. It will probably do the same to Taiwan, in the next few years (tho it will be much more problematic)
America as the still pre-eminent power entirely has this mindset. ESPECIALLY in North America. It is the imperial backyard, it belongs to America. The mere trafficking of drugs over the border has America talking of invasion - Chinese soldiers and bases??
Probably the equivalent for imperial Britain would be if Ireland somehow became independent in the 19th century and then the French started building naval bases in Cork and Dublin in about 1855. As a direct threat to the British imperium we would absolutely have invaded Ireland and driven the Frogs out. And quite right too
There is also a strong element, and this is absolutely understandable from us in the West, that we are, "right". Our post-enlightenment values represent the end of history as far as social, economic and geo-political structures are concerned.
Read some NATO documentation and you will see how it is a defensive this and non-aggressive that. NATO has decided that it is these things but I can see how the remnants of a country that for decades faced off against NATO missile for missile, armoured division for armoured division might not see it that way.
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...
That is called begging the question.
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly. How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
Yes, it was made very clear at the time that people weren't "invited" to NATO but had to apply for membership. Do you see how this might have affected the Russian psyche. Rather than embrace our erstwhile enemies, we tried to kick them when they were down.
I mean who the fuck is NATO anyway? It's the US and the US has for decades tried to impose its values on the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.
Right, I've just been commissioned to write 4 - FOUR - articles relating to work stuff. @Leon eat your heart out etc.,. Nah, nah, nah....
No travel involved alas. Bastards.
Still - must be off to earn a vaguely honest crust.
BTW according to the Post Office's careers website, it is apparently recruiting for a Principal Software Development Engineer to deliver "the largest technical transformation project within Europe".
What could possibly go wrong?!?
What’s the pay for that role? Anything less than £250k as a salary, or £2k/day as a contractor, and they’re not taking it seriously enough. They need to be hiring a superstar, which means competing with Apple and Google.
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...
That is called begging the question.
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly. How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
Yes, it was made very clear at the time that people weren't "invited" to NATO but had to apply for membership. Do you see how this might have affected the Russian psyche. Rather than embrace our erstwhile enemies, we tried to kick them when they were down.
I mean who the fuck is NATO anyway? It's the US and the US has for decades tried to impose its values on the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.
It’s easy to say that Russia should have come to a similar accommodation with US as France did after its decline as a global power, but it wasn’t really on offer.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
Rubbish because if he'd tried to undermine it the great green spaghetti monster would have brought Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd to his house and had a party wherein they would have invented cyber-musico-dilettantism and invaded Florida to confiscate all the retirement homes.
I would have used the pithier if my aunt had.... but in the light of the Scottish judgement I felt on shaky ground.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. There's no way you know any of this.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. I just wonder whether, in a counterfactual Russia that had become more ‘Western’, Putin might not have amassed the power that he has done. In an ideal world we would be dealing with a different Russian leader now.
Right, I've just been commissioned to write 4 - FOUR - articles relating to work stuff. @Leon eat your heart out etc.,. Nah, nah, nah....
No travel involved alas. Bastards.
Still - must be off to earn a vaguely honest crust.
BTW according to the Post Office's careers website, it is apparently recruiting for a Principal Software Development Engineer to deliver "the largest technical transformation project within Europe".
What could possibly go wrong?!?
What’s the pay for that role? Anything less than £250k as a salary, or £2k/day as a contractor, and they’re not taking it seriously enough. They need to be hiring a superstar, which means competing with Apple and Google.
Good luck with your articles.
I'd be pleasantly surprised if they were willing to pay more than six figures.
"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".
Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me
It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess
People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
What do you make of Donald Trump saying people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' as very fine people?
I wonder why you never spammed PB about that particular brand of antisemitism.
It’s not very interesting though?
Most people realise that Trump is a deeply unpleasant man who is potentially very dangerous. I wasn’t aware that he is anti-Semitic but I am wholly unsurprised.
What would @Leon repeating that add to the debate?
I’d be amazed if Trump is personally anti Semitic
He’s a narcissistic New York billionaire deal maker. He’s spent his whole life hanging out with Jews. I imagine he rather admires their business moxy and chutzpah. And he certainly didn’t mind chilling out with Epstein and Co
However he’s an amoral egomaniac and he’s quite capable of utilising anti Semitism if it suits him
Another reason to doubt Donald Trump's antisemitism is his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish.
Trump is broadly an equal-opportunities hater. His overriding interest is his own advancement and 'success'. A distant second is his family's advancement. Any group or person that can assist him is to be welcomed; any group or person who stands in his way is to be pushed out. The inherent nature of those groups or individuals is by the by.
In terms of his bigotry, and excluding where he's personally involved, his sexism is probably his most developed type. He likes women to be pretty and submissive and nothing more. This is a point worth bearing in mind re the Haley candidacy.
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...
That is called begging the question.
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly. How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
Yes, it was made very clear at the time that people weren't "invited" to NATO but had to apply for membership. Do you see how this might have affected the Russian psyche. Rather than embrace our erstwhile enemies, we tried to kick them when they were down.
I mean who the fuck is NATO anyway? It's the US and the US has for decades tried to impose its values on the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.
It’s easy to say that Russia should have come to a similar accommodation with US as France did after its decline as a global power, but it wasn’t really on offer.
Topping talks about 1991 to 1995 as though Russia were some stable state we should have reached some imaginary deal with, which is an interesting fantasy. It was, of course, a rolling shitshow.
No doubt the US could have done better - for example if they'd kept that idiot Jeffrey Sachs away from the place. But Topping is just adopting a Russian narrative which bears only the loosest resemblance to actual history.
"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".
Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me
It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess
People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
What do you make of Donald Trump saying people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' as very fine people?
I wonder why you never spammed PB about that particular brand of antisemitism.
It’s not very interesting though?
Most people realise that Trump is a deeply unpleasant man who is potentially very dangerous. I wasn’t aware that he is anti-Semitic but I am wholly unsurprised.
What would @Leon repeating that add to the debate?
I’d be amazed if Trump is personally anti Semitic
He’s a narcissistic New York billionaire deal maker. He’s spent his whole life hanging out with Jews. I imagine he rather admires their business moxy and chutzpah. And he certainly didn’t mind chilling out with Epstein and Co
However he’s an amoral egomaniac and he’s quite capable of utilising anti Semitism if it suits him
Another reason to doubt Donald Trump's antisemitism is his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish.
Trump is broadly an equal-opportunities hater. His overriding interest is his own advancement and 'success'. A distant second is his family's advancement. Any group or person that can assist him is to be welcomed; any group or person who stands in his way is to be pushed out. The inherent nature of those groups or individuals is by the by.
In terms of his bigotry, and excluding where he's personally involved, his sexism is probably his most developed type. He likes women to be pretty and submissive and nothing more. This is a point worth bearing in mind re the Haley candidacy.
Trump is also not the least bit bothered about being consistent. He can have a Jewish daughter and son-in-law and be antisemitic. There are plenty on the US right who praise "good" Jews and talk of standing up for Israel, while criticising "bad" Jews for some conspiracy theory nonsense. See also Elon Musk. This is still antisemitism, just slightly more complicated antisemitism.
Technically, I think it's his sixth term. We should count the short period between him succeeding Yeltsin and winning his first election as his first term.
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...
That is called begging the question.
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly. How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
Yes, it was made very clear at the time that people weren't "invited" to NATO but had to apply for membership. Do you see how this might have affected the Russian psyche. Rather than embrace our erstwhile enemies, we tried to kick them when they were down.
I mean who the fuck is NATO anyway? It's the US and the US has for decades tried to impose its values on the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.
It’s easy to say that Russia should have come to a similar accommodation with US as France did after its decline as a global power, but it wasn’t really on offer.
Topping talks about 1991 to 1995 as though Russia were some stable state we should have reached some imaginary deal with, which is an interesting fantasy. It was, of course, a rolling shitshow.
No doubt the US could have done better - for example if they'd kept that idiot Jeffrey Sachs away from the place. But Topping is just adopting a Russian narrative which bears only the loosest resemblance to actual history.
Right, I've just been commissioned to write 4 - FOUR - articles relating to work stuff. @Leon eat your heart out etc.,. Nah, nah, nah....
No travel involved alas. Bastards.
Still - must be off to earn a vaguely honest crust.
BTW according to the Post Office's careers website, it is apparently recruiting for a Principal Software Development Engineer to deliver "the largest technical transformation project within Europe".
What could possibly go wrong?!?
What’s the pay for that role? Anything less than £250k as a salary, or £2k/day as a contractor, and they’re not taking it seriously enough. They need to be hiring a superstar, which means competing with Apple and Google.
Good luck with your articles.
I'd be pleasantly surprised if they were willing to pay more than six figures.
Of course, which is why they’ll spectacularly fail to turn things around. They need to hire in-house a whole team of top-notch software developers, and they’re not going to accept some bollocks about the great pension making up for the crap salary, because they’re not intending to be public-sector lifers.
Meanwhile, Apple and Google will keep picking off the actual talent in the dev industry.
A big difference between Mexico and the Baltic States, is the latter were forced against their will to 'join' the Soviet Union. And following their independence, a bunch of people in the country which occupied them believe they are a part of Russia. A bit more understandable if Mexico wished to join a military alliance with China if its history were similar.
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...
That is called begging the question.
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly. How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
Yes, it was made very clear at the time that people weren't "invited" to NATO but had to apply for membership. Do you see how this might have affected the Russian psyche. Rather than embrace our erstwhile enemies, we tried to kick them when they were down.
I mean who the fuck is NATO anyway? It's the US and the US has for decades tried to impose its values on the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.
It’s easy to say that Russia should have come to a similar accommodation with US as France did after its decline as a global power, but it wasn’t really on offer.
Topping talks about 1991 to 1995 as though Russia were some stable state we should have reached some imaginary deal with, which is an interesting fantasy. It was, of course, a rolling shitshow.
No doubt the US could have done better - for example if they'd kept that idiot Jeffrey Sachs away from the place. But Topping is just adopting a Russian narrative which bears only the loosest resemblance to actual history.
I appreciate that it takes a middling-ish intelligence to understand what was going on at the time and after all you are the expert on the region and its geopolitics who is able to determine the outcome of the entire Ukraine war based on a youtube clip of a platoon dismount from its APC so I should be careful here. Not of course mentioning the proof if proof be needed of your searing analysis of Ukraine's military superiority which derived from game footage rather than fighting around the Donetsk region but I digress.
It is well-understood that at that time the US and the West sought to emphasise that there was only one game in town and that we, the West owned the ball.
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
I more incline to the 'Putin as gangster' strain of thought. You get a better understanding of his actions these days through that lens imo. So it's not so much about how Russia perceives itself it's how Vladimir Putin perceives HIMself. Russia's interests aren't his. His interests aren't Russia's
Your Mex analogy is not terrible, it hands down beats Brexit's like having a baby, but it doesn't feel very relevant to Russia/Ukraine because you have to make so many leaps and twists in order to make it fit. It makes for an interesting 'port and cigar' chat, if this the objective, but it doesn't work beyond that. Not for me anyway.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. I just wonder whether, in a counterfactual Russia that had become more ‘Western’, Putin might not have amassed the power that he has done. In an ideal world we would be dealing with a different Russian leader now.
Obama characterised him as '...an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist'. I think that's pretty accurate as far as it goes, and is entirely consistent with the above.
He is of course lots of other things too, mostly pretty nasty, but it is the Nationalism that is the driving force and makes him both dangerous and difficult to deal with.
I'm afraid I don't buy the Gorbachev line that Russia would have been a nicer place if the West had treated it nicer after the break-up of the Union. When has Russia ever ever played nicely on the international stage?
Leon also completely ignores the fact there is a certain island country which is a few hundred miles from the US which is on rather friendly terms with Russia and had a 'military alliance' with the Soviet Union.
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...
That is called begging the question.
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly. How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
Yes, it was made very clear at the time that people weren't "invited" to NATO but had to apply for membership. Do you see how this might have affected the Russian psyche. Rather than embrace our erstwhile enemies, we tried to kick them when they were down.
I mean who the fuck is NATO anyway? It's the US and the US has for decades tried to impose its values on the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.
It’s easy to say that Russia should have come to a similar accommodation with US as France did after its decline as a global power, but it wasn’t really on offer.
Topping talks about 1991 to 1995 as though Russia were some stable state we should have reached some imaginary deal with, which is an interesting fantasy. It was, of course, a rolling shitshow.
No doubt the US could have done better - for example if they'd kept that idiot Jeffrey Sachs away from the place. But Topping is just adopting a Russian narrative which bears only the loosest resemblance to actual history.
It was full of mostly American free-market economists giving lousy advice on the economic transformation and next to no advice on the things that really mattered: the institutions that are vital to buttress a free market economy.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. I just wonder whether, in a counterfactual Russia that had become more ‘Western’, Putin might not have amassed the power that he has done. In an ideal world we would be dealing with a different Russian leader now.
Obama characterised him as '...an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist'. I think that's pretty accurate as far as it goes, and is entirely consistent with the above.
He is of course lots of other things too, mostly pretty nasty, but it is the Nationalism that is the driving force and makes him both dangerous and difficult to deal with.
I'm afraid I don't buy the Gorbachev line that Russia would have been a nicer place if the West had treated it nicer after the break-up of the Union. When has Russia ever ever played nicely on the international stage?
We in the west actually did a lot - and spent a lot of money - in the 1990s and 2000s to try to bring Russia back from its doldrums. From things like space cooperation, to decommissioning old nuclear subs, to buying their darned oil and gas. There's this idea developing that we weren't 'nice' to Russia. It's bogus.
What it means is that we didn't bend over backwards to give Putin everything he wanted.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
Rubbish because if he'd tried to undermine it the great green spaghetti monster would have brought Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd to his house and had a party wherein they would have invented cyber-musico-dilettantism and invaded Florida to confiscate all the retirement homes.
I would have used the pithier if my aunt had.... but in the light of the Scottish judgement I felt on shaky ground.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. There's no way you know any of this.
Aside from the fact your post contains barely comprehensible something - I assume snark - you're wrong for one reason:
look at the man.
If you're saying Putin isn't a rabid nationalist, then I think you've got some rather odd glasses on. The question then becomes for how long as he been a rabid nationalist; and I think it's now clear that he's been such for some long period of time.
And rabid nationalists do what rabid nationalists do.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. I just wonder whether, in a counterfactual Russia that had become more ‘Western’, Putin might not have amassed the power that he has done. In an ideal world we would be dealing with a different Russian leader now.
Obama characterised him as '...an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist'. I think that's pretty accurate as far as it goes, and is entirely consistent with the above.
He is of course lots of other things too, mostly pretty nasty, but it is the Nationalism that is the driving force and makes him both dangerous and difficult to deal with.
I'm afraid I don't buy the Gorbachev line that Russia would have been a nicer place if the West had treated it nicer after the break-up of the Union. When has Russia ever ever played nicely on the international stage?
We in the west actually did a lot - and spent a lot of money - in the 1990s and 2000s to try to bring Russia back from its doldrums. From things like space cooperation, to decommissioning old nuclear subs, to buying their darned oil and gas. There's this idea developing that we weren't 'nice' to Russia. It's bogus.
What it means is that we didn't bend over backwards to give Putin everything he wanted.
It's also a means of denying Russia's own culpability and responsibility for its own actions and choices, post-communism.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. I just wonder whether, in a counterfactual Russia that had become more ‘Western’, Putin might not have amassed the power that he has done. In an ideal world we would be dealing with a different Russian leader now.
Obama characterised him as '...an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist'. I think that's pretty accurate as far as it goes, and is entirely consistent with the above.
He is of course lots of other things too, mostly pretty nasty, but it is the Nationalism that is the driving force and makes him both dangerous and difficult to deal with.
I'm afraid I don't buy the Gorbachev line that Russia would have been a nicer place if the West had treated it nicer after the break-up of the Union. When has Russia ever ever played nicely on the international stage?
We in the west actually did a lot - and spent a lot of money - in the 1990s and 2000s to try to bring Russia back from its doldrums. From things like space cooperation, to decommissioning old nuclear subs, to buying their darned oil and gas. There's this idea developing that we weren't 'nice' to Russia. It's bogus.
What it means is that we didn't bend over backwards to give Putin everything he wanted.
Sure.
i don't think our views are necessarily incompatible.
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...
That is called begging the question.
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly. How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
Yes, it was made very clear at the time that people weren't "invited" to NATO but had to apply for membership. Do you see how this might have affected the Russian psyche. Rather than embrace our erstwhile enemies, we tried to kick them when they were down.
I mean who the fuck is NATO anyway? It's the US and the US has for decades tried to impose its values on the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.
It’s easy to say that Russia should have come to a similar accommodation with US as France did after its decline as a global power, but it wasn’t really on offer.
Topping talks about 1991 to 1995 as though Russia were some stable state we should have reached some imaginary deal with, which is an interesting fantasy. It was, of course, a rolling shitshow.
No doubt the US could have done better - for example if they'd kept that idiot Jeffrey Sachs away from the place. But Topping is just adopting a Russian narrative which bears only the loosest resemblance to actual history.
It was full of mostly American free-market economists giving lousy advice on the economic transformation and next to no advice on the things that really mattered: the institutions that are vital to buttress a free market economy.
Hence my name checking Sachs.
Who, bizarrely, later turned up at the head of the Lancet 'Covid Commission'.
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...
That is called begging the question.
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly. How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
Yes, it was made very clear at the time that people weren't "invited" to NATO but had to apply for membership. Do you see how this might have affected the Russian psyche. Rather than embrace our erstwhile enemies, we tried to kick them when they were down.
I mean who the fuck is NATO anyway? It's the US and the US has for decades tried to impose its values on the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.
It’s easy to say that Russia should have come to a similar accommodation with US as France did after its decline as a global power, but it wasn’t really on offer.
Topping talks about 1991 to 1995 as though Russia were some stable state we should have reached some imaginary deal with, which is an interesting fantasy. It was, of course, a rolling shitshow.
No doubt the US could have done better - for example if they'd kept that idiot Jeffrey Sachs away from the place. But Topping is just adopting a Russian narrative which bears only the loosest resemblance to actual history.
It was full of mostly American free-market economists giving lousy advice on the economic transformation and next to no advice on the things that really mattered: the institutions that are vital to buttress a free market economy.
From that BBC miniseries recently, and some things I've read, it was a little more complex than that. People had started making lots of money under Perstroika and later 'innovations' to the Soviet system. They wanted to continue making money, and so did lots of people in the west. What happened was not an economic transformation, but an economic revolution: and in revolutions, some people get hurt (and lots of people did), and a lucky few get very, very rich.
Good, solid institutions would have obstructed that revolution somewhat and, worse, perhaps even stopped the redistribution of wealth to the (few) people. Therefore those institutions had to be obstructed. The people making the decisions (and grabbing the wealth) in Russia did not want those institutions for that reason.
The Govt were intending to close it before that even happened, until they received the 750k responses.
Oh for the days when you could pop down to Sunderland on a summer Saturday to catch the Scarborough - Newcastle (via the Durham Coast) for some major English Electric noise as it blasted out of the station through the tunnel.
Technically, I think it's his sixth term. We should count the short period between him succeeding Yeltsin and winning his first election as his first term.
We’ve all given demos of software which doesn’t exist to a customer, that’s normal. But posting it publicly and saying it’s wonderful, when it’s actually still pretty impressive, but preferring to mislead instead?
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 have devoted my lunch hour to reading Lady Haldane's judgment. It is a very comprehensive and substantial piece of work. Essentially the starting point of the Lord Advocate (aka my boss) was that s35 was a long stop provision which no one expected to have to other use. This was because s35 was really designed to require the governments to discuss and agree differences on such matters in advance. There was little to no evidence of this being attempted in this case. What we had, instead, was a policy disagreement and that was not a proper basis for vetoing an Act of the Scottish Parliament. Even if that was not the case the democratic deficit in the Secretary of State's decision meant that it should be very carefully scrutinised by the court.
The Court rejected all of these arguments. S35 was a part of the constitutional framework set up by the 1998 Act. It was not exceptional, even although it took 25 years for it to ever be used. The test of reasonableness did not require high scrutiny. It was to be assessed by ordinary principles. This meant, for example, the question was not whether or not the Secretary of State could have looked at more material as to how the Bill was to operate but rather whether what he looked at was enough for him to make a reasonable and reasoned decision.
There are one or two aspects of the criticisms that Lady Haldane had some sympathy with but the key to her decision was even if that reduced one of the reasons given that would not of itself give a basis for reducing the decision. I think that this is the key point going forward. If that is the correct test the prospects of a successful appeal are modest to non existent. You need to reduce not one or two of the reasons but enough of them to bring the whole edifice down. If I was advising my client on this I would tell them not to appeal.
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...
That is called begging the question.
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly. How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
Yes, it was made very clear at the time that people weren't "invited" to NATO but had to apply for membership. Do you see how this might have affected the Russian psyche. Rather than embrace our erstwhile enemies, we tried to kick them when they were down.
I mean who the fuck is NATO anyway? It's the US and the US has for decades tried to impose its values on the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.
It’s easy to say that Russia should have come to a similar accommodation with US as France did after its decline as a global power, but it wasn’t really on offer.
Topping talks about 1991 to 1995 as though Russia were some stable state we should have reached some imaginary deal with, which is an interesting fantasy. It was, of course, a rolling shitshow.
No doubt the US could have done better - for example if they'd kept that idiot Jeffrey Sachs away from the place. But Topping is just adopting a Russian narrative which bears only the loosest resemblance to actual history.
It was full of mostly American free-market economists giving lousy advice on the economic transformation and next to no advice on the things that really mattered: the institutions that are vital to buttress a free market economy.
From that BBC miniseries recently, and some things I've read, it was a little more complex than that. People had started making lots of money under Perstroika and later 'innovations' to the Soviet system. They wanted to continue making money, and so did lots of people in the west. What happened was not an economic transformation, but an economic revolution: and in revolutions, some people get hurt (and lots of people did), and a lucky few get very, very rich.
Good, solid institutions would have obstructed that revolution somewhat and, worse, perhaps even stopped the redistribution of wealth to the (few) people. Therefore those institutions had to be obstructed. The people making the decisions (and grabbing the wealth) in Russia did not want those institutions for that reason.
The story is well told in Chrystia Freeland's book Sale Of The Century, which chronicles the brazen, jaw-dropping theft of Russian assets by 'The Oligarchs'.
It was rather an odds-on shot. But let's not be churlish, jolly well done.
What's your take on it.
Well I support the Scottish reforms. They'd be much appreciated by trans people, would improve life for them, whilst not in practice adversely affecting anybody else. Several countries have similar in place and I think we should join them.
So I was hoping the SG would succeed here. I wasn't really expecting them to though. Rather like VAR, there would need to have been a clear and obvious error by the UKG and there wasn't. There is an impact on Equalities Law and Equalities Law is a Westminster matter. The UKG case rested on those 2 facts and they are facts.
The area where I thought they might have a sniff of a chance was on materiality - ie is the impact on the rest of the UK expected in practice to be material? If not maybe you can argue the UKG acted unjustifiably. I would argue that actually. But I guess this is not the same as the UKG acted illegally.
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 have devoted my lunch hour to reading Lady Haldane's judgment. It is a very comprehensive and substantial piece of work. Essentially the starting point of the Lord Advocate (aka my boss) was that s35 was a long stop provision which no one expected to have to other use. This was because s35 was really designed to require the governments to discuss and agree differences on such matters in advance. There was little to no evidence of this being attempted in this case. What we had, instead, was a policy disagreement and that was not a proper basis for vetoing an Act of the Scottish Parliament. Even if that was not the case the democratic deficit in the Secretary of State's decision meant that it should be very carefully scrutinised by the court.
The Court rejected all of these arguments. S35 was a part of the constitutional framework set up by the 1998 Act. It was not exceptional, even although it took 25 years for it to ever be used. The test of reasonableness did not require high scrutiny. It was to be assessed by ordinary principles. This meant, for example, the question was not whether or not the Secretary of State could have looked at more material as to how the Bill was to operate but rather whether what he looked at was enough for him to make a reasonable and reasoned decision.
There are one or two aspects of the criticisms that Lady Haldane had some sympathy with but the key to her decision was even if that reduced one of the reasons given that would not of itself give a basis for reducing the decision. I think that this is the key point going forward. If that is the correct test the prospects of a successful appeal are modest to non existent. You need to reduce not one or two of the reasons but enough of them to bring the whole edifice down. If I was advising my client on this I would tell them not to appeal.
Lord Sumption was right, about the reasonableness test.
We’ve all given demos of software which doesn’t exist to a customer, that’s normal. But posting it publicly and saying it’s wonderful, when it’s actually still pretty impressive, but preferring to mislead instead?
I saw it and was unimpressed. Now it transpires it was deliberately concocted to impress by some not-very-impressive humans. The same crowd-sourced, characterless prose that emanates from OpenAI. I'm really not sure why @Leon is afraid of it.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. I just wonder whether, in a counterfactual Russia that had become more ‘Western’, Putin might not have amassed the power that he has done. In an ideal world we would be dealing with a different Russian leader now.
Obama characterised him as '...an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist'. I think that's pretty accurate as far as it goes, and is entirely consistent with the above.
He is of course lots of other things too, mostly pretty nasty, but it is the Nationalism that is the driving force and makes him both dangerous and difficult to deal with.
I'm afraid I don't buy the Gorbachev line that Russia would have been a nicer place if the West had treated it nicer after the break-up of the Union. When has Russia ever ever played nicely on the international stage?
We in the west actually did a lot - and spent a lot of money - in the 1990s and 2000s to try to bring Russia back from its doldrums. From things like space cooperation, to decommissioning old nuclear subs, to buying their darned oil and gas. There's this idea developing that we weren't 'nice' to Russia. It's bogus.
What it means is that we didn't bend over backwards to give Putin everything he wanted.
It's also a means of denying Russia's own culpability and responsibility for its own actions and choices, post-communism.
This is critical. You are right. It is Russia's fault and no one else for what it did post-communism. Whether good or bad. But I am seeking to explain not excuse. It is a contributory factor, imo, that Russia was shut out from the Western brotherhood of nations in a way that might have built resentment. That does not excuse its behaviour since nor make its invasion of Ukraine "right". But it helps to explain it. It is also important to understand its motivation from a non-Western free market liberal perspective.
I appreciate that this analysis, such as it is, deriving mostly from googleable sources, gets our Ukraine Brigade up in arms.
Likewise (@kini talking to you here), it is important to understand the motivations for Hamas in its actions against Israel. It is both aggrieved at its perceived injustice of the land split, and also wishes to exterminate the land of Israel for some reason or other. I can understand both these views without believing that they are justified in holding them.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. I just wonder whether, in a counterfactual Russia that had become more ‘Western’, Putin might not have amassed the power that he has done. In an ideal world we would be dealing with a different Russian leader now.
Obama characterised him as '...an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist'. I think that's pretty accurate as far as it goes, and is entirely consistent with the above.
He is of course lots of other things too, mostly pretty nasty, but it is the Nationalism that is the driving force and makes him both dangerous and difficult to deal with.
I'm afraid I don't buy the Gorbachev line that Russia would have been a nicer place if the West had treated it nicer after the break-up of the Union. When has Russia ever ever played nicely on the international stage?
We in the west actually did a lot - and spent a lot of money - in the 1990s and 2000s to try to bring Russia back from its doldrums. From things like space cooperation, to decommissioning old nuclear subs, to buying their darned oil and gas. There's this idea developing that we weren't 'nice' to Russia. It's bogus.
What it means is that we didn't bend over backwards to give Putin everything he wanted.
It's also a means of denying Russia's own culpability and responsibility for its own actions and choices, post-communism.
The justification for Russia is very much along the lines of "The big boy made me do it."
One can understand why Russia's elite feel the way they do, and still conclude Boo and Hoo.
If it is a present, I'd honestly consider asking the chap first, especially if you are in for £250-£500, as for some people their cooking knives are as personal as their underpants - or at least making sure there is possibility of return in case of wrong choice. It may be he has a knife he's been dreaming about for years.
It was rather an odds-on shot. But let's not be churlish, jolly well done.
What's your take on it.
Well I support the Scottish reforms. They'd be much appreciated by trans people, would improve life for them, whilst not in practice adversely affecting anybody else. Several countries have similar in place and I think we should join them.
So I was hoping the SG would succeed here. I wasn't really expecting them to though. Rather like VAR, there would need to have been a clear and obvious error by the UKG and there wasn't. There is an impact on Equalities Law and Equalities Law is a Westminster matter. The UKG case rested on those 2 facts and they are facts.
The area where I thought they might have a sniff of a chance was on materiality - ie is the impact on the rest of the UK expected in practice to be material? If not maybe you can argue the UKG acted unjustifiably. I would argue that actually. But I guess this is not the same as the UKG acted illegally.
We’ve all given demos of software which doesn’t exist to a customer, that’s normal. But posting it publicly and saying it’s wonderful, when it’s actually still pretty impressive, but preferring to mislead instead?
To be fair, I did ask the question "was it done in real time?"
And the answer would appear to be a resounding "no".
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 have devoted my lunch hour to reading Lady Haldane's judgment. It is a very comprehensive and substantial piece of work. Essentially the starting point of the Lord Advocate (aka my boss) was that s35 was a long stop provision which no one expected to have to other use. This was because s35 was really designed to require the governments to discuss and agree differences on such matters in advance. There was little to no evidence of this being attempted in this case. What we had, instead, was a policy disagreement and that was not a proper basis for vetoing an Act of the Scottish Parliament. Even if that was not the case the democratic deficit in the Secretary of State's decision meant that it should be very carefully scrutinised by the court.
The Court rejected all of these arguments. S35 was a part of the constitutional framework set up by the 1998 Act. It was not exceptional, even although it took 25 years for it to ever be used. The test of reasonableness did not require high scrutiny. It was to be assessed by ordinary principles. This meant, for example, the question was not whether or not the Secretary of State could have looked at more material as to how the Bill was to operate but rather whether what he looked at was enough for him to make a reasonable and reasoned decision.
There are one or two aspects of the criticisms that Lady Haldane had some sympathy with but the key to her decision was even if that reduced one of the reasons given that would not of itself give a basis for reducing the decision. I think that this is the key point going forward. If that is the correct test the prospects of a successful appeal are modest to non existent. You need to reduce not one or two of the reasons but enough of them to bring the whole edifice down. If I was advising my client on this I would tell them not to appeal.
Lord Sumption was right, about the reasonableness test.
On matters of law he nearly always is. But, like most of us, he should be more careful outside his area of speciality.
"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".
Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me
It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess
People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
What do you make of Donald Trump saying people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' as very fine people?
I wonder why you never spammed PB about that particular brand of antisemitism.
It’s not very interesting though?
Most people realise that Trump is a deeply unpleasant man who is potentially very dangerous. I wasn’t aware that he is anti-Semitic but I am wholly unsurprised.
What would @Leon repeating that add to the debate?
I’d be amazed if Trump is personally anti Semitic
He’s a narcissistic New York billionaire deal maker. He’s spent his whole life hanging out with Jews. I imagine he rather admires their business moxy and chutzpah. And he certainly didn’t mind chilling out with Epstein and Co
However he’s an amoral egomaniac and he’s quite capable of utilising anti Semitism if it suits him
Another reason to doubt Donald Trump's antisemitism is his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish.
Trump is broadly an equal-opportunities hater. His overriding interest is his own advancement and 'success'. A distant second is his family's advancement. Any group or person that can assist him is to be welcomed; any group or person who stands in his way is to be pushed out. The inherent nature of those groups or individuals is by the by.
In terms of his bigotry, and excluding where he's personally involved, his sexism is probably his most developed type. He likes women to be pretty and submissive and nothing more. This is a point worth bearing in mind re the Haley candidacy.
Yep, although I'd say you're being kind with 'sexism'. Trump is a bone deep misogynist imo.
Not an expert on libel law (see previous post) but essentially he was looking for summary decree on the basis that the defence of the paper that it had expressed a reasonable opinion rather than defamed him was unstatable and should not be permitted to go to trial. The Judge has disagreed stating that the defence that this was reasonable comment had reasonable prospects of success.
I think its a bit of a misdescription to describe this as a defeat for Harry. The test for summary decree is a high one and "reasonable prospects" doesn't necessarily mean that that defence will work. But he's going back to the witness box.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. I just wonder whether, in a counterfactual Russia that had become more ‘Western’, Putin might not have amassed the power that he has done. In an ideal world we would be dealing with a different Russian leader now.
Obama characterised him as '...an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist'. I think that's pretty accurate as far as it goes, and is entirely consistent with the above.
He is of course lots of other things too, mostly pretty nasty, but it is the Nationalism that is the driving force and makes him both dangerous and difficult to deal with.
I'm afraid I don't buy the Gorbachev line that Russia would have been a nicer place if the West had treated it nicer after the break-up of the Union. When has Russia ever ever played nicely on the international stage?
We in the west actually did a lot - and spent a lot of money - in the 1990s and 2000s to try to bring Russia back from its doldrums. From things like space cooperation, to decommissioning old nuclear subs, to buying their darned oil and gas. There's this idea developing that we weren't 'nice' to Russia. It's bogus.
What it means is that we didn't bend over backwards to give Putin everything he wanted.
Agreed, but on the narrow NATO point, we pushed perhaps harder than was wise, for understandable reasons.
Not an expert on libel law (see previous post) but essentially he was looking for summary decree on the basis that the defence of the paper that it had expressed a reasonable opinion rather than defamed him was unstatable and should not be permitted to go to trial. The Judge has disagreed stating that the defence that this was reasonable comment had reasonable prospects of success.
I think its a bit of a misdescription to describe this as a defeat for Harry. The test for summary decree is a high one and "reasonable prospects" doesn't necessarily mean that that defence will work. But he's going back to the witness box.
"Loses" seems a bit excessive as a description.
Surely he applied for a Summary Judgement, and was told no, it would need to be fully argued in court.
That's what (or one of the many whats) Mr Trump is upset about - he was found liable in a summary judgement on the facts on two of his New York Civil Fraud charges, and the others are being tried in open court now.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. I just wonder whether, in a counterfactual Russia that had become more ‘Western’, Putin might not have amassed the power that he has done. In an ideal world we would be dealing with a different Russian leader now.
Obama characterised him as '...an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist'. I think that's pretty accurate as far as it goes, and is entirely consistent with the above.
He is of course lots of other things too, mostly pretty nasty, but it is the Nationalism that is the driving force and makes him both dangerous and difficult to deal with.
I'm afraid I don't buy the Gorbachev line that Russia would have been a nicer place if the West had treated it nicer after the break-up of the Union. When has Russia ever ever played nicely on the international stage?
We in the west actually did a lot - and spent a lot of money - in the 1990s and 2000s to try to bring Russia back from its doldrums. From things like space cooperation, to decommissioning old nuclear subs, to buying their darned oil and gas. There's this idea developing that we weren't 'nice' to Russia. It's bogus.
What it means is that we didn't bend over backwards to give Putin everything he wanted.
It's also a means of denying Russia's own culpability and responsibility for its own actions and choices, post-communism.
This is critical. You are right. It is Russia's fault and no one else for what it did post-communism. Whether good or bad. But I am seeking to explain not excuse. It is a contributory factor, imo, that Russia was shut out from the Western brotherhood of nations in a way that might have built resentment. That does not excuse its behaviour since nor make its invasion of Ukraine "right". But it helps to explain it. It is also important to understand its motivation from a non-Western free market liberal perspective.
I appreciate that this analysis, such as it is, deriving mostly from googleable sources, gets our Ukraine Brigade up in arms.
Likewise (@kini talking to you here), it is important to understand the motivations for Hamas in its actions against Israel. It is both aggrieved at its perceived injustice of the land split, and also wishes to exterminate the land of Israel for some reason or other. I can understand both these views without believing that they are justified in holding them.
Hmm. But on Russia you try very hard indeed to 'understand'. Whereas on the Palestinians your 'understanding' is always couched in a way (as here) which leaves no doubt whatsoever about your feelings on the matter (heavily heavily pro Israel). Eg whenever some poster or other seeks to contextualize the Hamas attack of Oct 7th into the frame of the overall decades long Palestinian struggle for sovereignty you (if you're around) will be in like a whippet with some sark or an attempted takedown.
If it is a present, I'd honestly consider asking the chap first, especially if you are in for £250-£500, as for some people their cooking knives are as personal as their underpants - or at least making sure there is possibility of return in case of wrong choice. It may be he has a knife he's been dreaming about for years.
By coincidence, I was about to post my thanks for the links and advice in previous threads on the subject of knives. We had been looking for a good set of steak knives for some time and, as a result of the comments, we opted for a set of Opinel Facettes. They arrived yesterday and look brilliant and cut superbly.
It's amazing what you can learn from PB! Thanks again.
First, some years ago, social workers did an experiment and placed two teenage girls in the foster care of a single man. (This happened in Bellevue, the wealthy suburb just south of where I live.)
The results were what anyone in the real world should have expected. He had sex with both of the girls.
Second, there was scandal in a men's state prison in Baltimore. As one woud expect, most of the inmates were young black men. Under civil service rules, some young black women were hired as guards. As anyone in the real world would expect, a few of these fell in love with inmates.
A state senator, a middle-aged black woman, who does live in the real world, suggested from then on the prison should hire only men, and ugly men at that.
Third, in the US it is common to joke about male prisoners being raped by other males. We shouldn't, given the damage it may do to those raped. (In one of Tony Hillerman's Navajo detective stories, "The Talking God", such a rape helps form the character of one of the creepiest muderers-for-hire I've ever read about.)
In all three of these, there is a common element: a refusal to accept realities about some men -- and some women.
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 have devoted my lunch hour to reading Lady Haldane's judgment. It is a very comprehensive and substantial piece of work. Essentially the starting point of the Lord Advocate (aka my boss) was that s35 was a long stop provision which no one expected to have to other use. This was because s35 was really designed to require the governments to discuss and agree differences on such matters in advance. There was little to no evidence of this being attempted in this case. What we had, instead, was a policy disagreement and that was not a proper basis for vetoing an Act of the Scottish Parliament. Even if that was not the case the democratic deficit in the Secretary of State's decision meant that it should be very carefully scrutinised by the court.
The Court rejected all of these arguments. S35 was a part of the constitutional framework set up by the 1998 Act. It was not exceptional, even although it took 25 years for it to ever be used. The test of reasonableness did not require high scrutiny. It was to be assessed by ordinary principles. This meant, for example, the question was not whether or not the Secretary of State could have looked at more material as to how the Bill was to operate but rather whether what he looked at was enough for him to make a reasonable and reasoned decision.
There are one or two aspects of the criticisms that Lady Haldane had some sympathy with but the key to her decision was even if that reduced one of the reasons given that would not of itself give a basis for reducing the decision. I think that this is the key point going forward. If that is the correct test the prospects of a successful appeal are modest to non existent. You need to reduce not one or two of the reasons but enough of them to bring the whole edifice down. If I was advising my client on this I would tell them not to appeal.
Lord Sumption was right, about the reasonableness test.
On matters of law he nearly always is. But, like most of us, he should be more careful outside his area of speciality.
So you assumption is that Sumption is not for consumption if the presumption is outside his legal function, incurring a malfunction vide his poor conjunction incurring extreme unction?
Is that a 180-plus majority for Labour? That's a Blair-level win
On current polling, I'd expect Labour's majority to be well over 200. Blair only led Major by 13 points. Starmer is a good deal further ahead and there's strong evidence that tactical anti-Tory voting will be very strong.
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.
(Snip)
I think that argument's bogus for one big reason: it assumes Putin is (or ever was) a faithful actor.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. I just wonder whether, in a counterfactual Russia that had become more ‘Western’, Putin might not have amassed the power that he has done. In an ideal world we would be dealing with a different Russian leader now.
Obama characterised him as '...an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist'. I think that's pretty accurate as far as it goes, and is entirely consistent with the above.
He is of course lots of other things too, mostly pretty nasty, but it is the Nationalism that is the driving force and makes him both dangerous and difficult to deal with.
I'm afraid I don't buy the Gorbachev line that Russia would have been a nicer place if the West had treated it nicer after the break-up of the Union. When has Russia ever ever played nicely on the international stage?
We in the west actually did a lot - and spent a lot of money - in the 1990s and 2000s to try to bring Russia back from its doldrums. From things like space cooperation, to decommissioning old nuclear subs, to buying their darned oil and gas. There's this idea developing that we weren't 'nice' to Russia. It's bogus.
What it means is that we didn't bend over backwards to give Putin everything he wanted.
It's also a means of denying Russia's own culpability and responsibility for its own actions and choices, post-communism.
This is critical. You are right. It is Russia's fault and no one else for what it did post-communism. Whether good or bad. But I am seeking to explain not excuse. It is a contributory factor, imo, that Russia was shut out from the Western brotherhood of nations in a way that might have built resentment. That does not excuse its behaviour since nor make its invasion of Ukraine "right". But it helps to explain it. It is also important to understand its motivation from a non-Western free market liberal perspective.
I appreciate that this analysis, such as it is, deriving mostly from googleable sources, gets our Ukraine Brigade up in arms.
Likewise (@kini talking to you here), it is important to understand the motivations for Hamas in its actions against Israel. It is both aggrieved at its perceived injustice of the land split, and also wishes to exterminate the land of Israel for some reason or other. I can understand both these views without believing that they are justified in holding them.
But how true is this about Russia being shut out. The big organisation for Western economic Cooperation is the G7 which of course was the G8 until Russia crapped in the pool by invading Crimea in 2014.
Indeed Russia was integrated into many Western organisations until they ballsed it up for themselves.
(After the US Civil War ended in 1865, the US sent guns and troops to the Mexican border to support the Mexicans resisting French rule. For example, General Philip Sheridan transferred some 30,000 rifles to the Mexicans.
FDR's "good neighbor" policy improved relations with Mexico enough so that Mexico joined the allies in WW II, and something like 250,000 Mexican men joined the US armed forces.
George W. Bush wisely made improving relations with Mexico a main objective of his foreign policy, and achieved some successes.)
Comments
Americans (and Chinese, increasingly, and Russians, decreasingly but still) DO have an imperialist mindset. Might makes right, fuck it, this is our territory, our sphere of influence, we do what we need to do, who is going to stop us?
Britain up to about 1910 absolutely had this mindset, France perhaps to 1870 (though cowed by Britain at sea), but arguably in the era of the Sun King before his dynasty was eclipsed by England
China felt able to take and subdue Hong Kong. It did so, despite all those treaties and promises. It will probably do the same to Taiwan, in the next few years (tho it will be much more problematic)
America as the still pre-eminent power entirely has this mindset. ESPECIALLY in North America. It is the imperial backyard, it belongs to America. The mere trafficking of drugs over the border has America talking of invasion - Chinese soldiers and bases??
Probably the equivalent for imperial Britain would be if Ireland somehow became independent in the 19th century and then the French started building naval bases in Cork and Dublin in about 1855. As a direct threat to the British imperium we would absolutely have invaded Ireland and driven the Frogs out. And quite right too
Knowledge is good. Learning is good. Reward learning in all disciplines equally according to the level and depth of the knowledge gained. Using the same terminology.
See the creation of the nursing degree. Because training a nurse involves years of study, practicals, exams etc. The degree bit is just labelling.
Calling them degrees is just easier, historically.
But yes, some have moved long distances for short term posts. We're fairly lucky here in that Leeds, York, Hull, Bradford and even Manchester can be viable options for couples looking for post-doc positions and not finding posts at the same uni while still living together - and in my field there are NHS jobs, too) but others have had to go further.
For some, single mid-20s, the chance to move somewhere completely different for a couple of years is quite appealing. Much less so for those with partners/family.
The Brexit anger has now morphed into the boats anger. Same issue as this seam of society voted Brexit to get rid of foreigners. If they can coalesce that anger into a suitable seat or two then yes, reFUK could pick up some seats.
The question of course is where. As tempting as it would be to suggest the land that time forgot (Stoke on Trent) or somewhere truly lost like Grimsby, I suspect its more likely to be in southern England. Thanet again?
He really isn’t an anti-Semite. He is a mofo, tho
"Are we producing too many graduates from too many universities?" That's a complex question! https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/graduate-labour-markets notes:
"Working-age graduates and postgraduates continue to have higher employment rates than non-graduates. The employment rates for both graduates and postgraduates increased in 2022 compared to 2021, with postgraduates having the largest increase. There was a small decrease in employment rates for working-age non-graduates. [...]
"In 2022, the employment rate for working-age graduates (those aged 16 - 64) was 87.3%, an increase of 0.6 percentage points on 2021 (86.6%). For working-age postgraduates, the employment rate was 89.3%, an increase of 1.1 percentage points on 2021 (88.2%). For working-age non-graduates, the employment rate was 69.6%, a decrease of 0.2 percentage points from 2021 (69.8%).
"In 2022, 66.3% of working-age graduates were in high-skilled employment, compared to 78.3% of postgraduates and 23.6% of non-graduates. In 2022, the percentage of working-age graduates and postgraduates in high-skilled employment was 1.1 percentage points higher than in 2021. The percentage of working-age non-graduates in high-skilled employment increased by 0.2 percentage points compared to 2021.
"In 2022, the median nominal salary for working-age graduates was £38,500. This was £11,500 more than working-age non-graduates (£27,000), but £6,500 less than working-age postgraduates (£45,000). In nominal terms, salaries increased for all groups. However, in real terms (2007 prices, using CPI-H), salaries for graduates and non-graduates remained the same from 2021 to 2022, whilst postgraduates saw a decrease of £1,000. The gap between the median salaries of graduates and non-graduates has increased by £1,000 since 2021 in nominal terms and by £500 in real terms."
So, university attendance remains associated with better economic outcomes.
"Should e.g. Portsmouth and Paisley revert to being polytechnics?" A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The conversion from polytechnics to universities happened a long time ago and I'm not certain what would actually be achieved by reversing it. I think it is widely recognised that we have a diversity of university types, whatever you call them. Perhaps the question, and the previous one about nursing, is really more about how we teach certain subject. Should we shift away from a classroom model for certain types of skill?
In the past, more people did apprenticeships, but the economic system where people would stay with one firm and one profession for a long time simply doesn't exist any more. Modern companies are frequently not interested in this sort of long-term investment in staff.
"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?" In practice, do you think anyone does confuse a law degree from Cambridge with a tourism degree from Glasgow Caledonian?
"Or is a university education so valuable that it should be offered to as many people as possible?" We live in a highly complex and technical world. Potential areas of economic growth for our nation do not lie in more people tilling the land or manning a production line any more. The knowledge economy is king.
https://www.nexus.org.uk/news/item/sunderlands-new-station-entrance-doors-opens-are-opened
Had we genuinely offered such thing they might well have turned it down anyway. And the idea of 'us' inviting them into NATO is plain silly.
How much effort has it been to make even Sweden a member ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67660745
I do not think Betfair has a market open yet.
Bad news! it opens out into Sunderland...
Right of Conquest was an accepted term of international law.
And, the USA and China certainly act as if the strong do as they will, the weak as they must.
Russia’s problem is it’s not really one of the strong, any longer. If Russia was still the kick-arse power of 1945, we’d just have to accept that Eastern Europe is theirs
Read some NATO documentation and you will see how it is a defensive this and non-aggressive that. NATO has decided that it is these things but I can see how the remnants of a country that for decades faced off against NATO missile for missile, armoured division for armoured division might not see it that way.
I mean who the fuck is NATO anyway? It's the US and the US has for decades tried to impose its values on the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.
Good luck with your articles.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/russias-fsb-malign-cyber-activity-factsheet/russias-fsb-malign-activity-factsheet
A valuable resource for novelists and possibly of interest to tech nerds.
It's clear that his mindset is of an imperialist, expansionist Russia. This is sadly probably not a new thing, and is made worse by the fact that even with is natural resources, Russia does not have the power to attain those goals.
Sa I'd argue *whatever* we did, short of abandoning Eastern Europe to his regime, he would have used against us. If a deal had been done for Russia to join NATO, he would have undermined it from within: because a weakened NATO would naturally make Russia appear stronkier.
He's not interested in Russian security. He wants Russia to be *great*. Those are two very different things.
I would have used the pithier if my aunt had.... but in the light of the Scottish judgement I felt on shaky ground.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. There's no way you know any of this.
Can’t say I feel the urge to go now.
In terms of his bigotry, and excluding where he's personally involved, his sexism is probably his most developed type. He likes women to be pretty and submissive and nothing more. This is a point worth bearing in mind re the Haley candidacy.
No doubt the US could have done better - for example if they'd kept that idiot Jeffrey Sachs away from the place.
But Topping is just adopting a Russian narrative which bears only the loosest resemblance to actual history.
I did tip him to win last time, here - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/13/putin-on-a-show-finding-value-in-marchs-russian-election/
Meanwhile, Apple and Google will keep picking off the actual talent in the dev industry.
The Govt were intending to close it before that even happened, until they received the 750k responses.
A bit more understandable if Mexico wished to join a military alliance with China if its history were similar.
It is well-understood that at that time the US and the West sought to emphasise that there was only one game in town and that we, the West owned the ball.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer
https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
Two off the top of google but knock yourself out with more research.
Your Mex analogy is not terrible, it hands down beats Brexit's like having a baby, but it doesn't feel very relevant to Russia/Ukraine because you have to make so many leaps and twists in order to make it fit. It makes for an interesting 'port and cigar' chat, if this the objective, but it doesn't work beyond that. Not for me anyway.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/07/googles-best-gemini-demo-was-faked/
He is of course lots of other things too, mostly pretty nasty, but it is the Nationalism that is the driving force and makes him both dangerous and difficult to deal with.
I'm afraid I don't buy the Gorbachev line that Russia would have been a nicer place if the West had treated it nicer after the break-up of the Union. When has Russia ever ever played nicely on the international stage?
Like France has any influence left
It would be like the BBC concentrating on Calcutta and Bombay and tea-time in Darjeeling
What it means is that we didn't bend over backwards to give Putin everything he wanted.
NO SPOILERS
look at the man.
If you're saying Putin isn't a rabid nationalist, then I think you've got some rather odd glasses on. The question then becomes for how long as he been a rabid nationalist; and I think it's now clear that he's been such for some long period of time.
And rabid nationalists do what rabid nationalists do.
i don't think our views are necessarily incompatible.
Who, bizarrely, later turned up at the head of the Lancet 'Covid Commission'.
Full disclosure: this may only be because I hadn't seen the demo
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/12/08/prince-harry-loses-libel-claim-mail-on-sunday/
Good, solid institutions would have obstructed that revolution somewhat and, worse, perhaps even stopped the redistribution of wealth to the (few) people. Therefore those institutions had to be obstructed. The people making the decisions (and grabbing the wealth) in Russia did not want those institutions for that reason.
Now you can catch the Metro.
The Court rejected all of these arguments. S35 was a part of the constitutional framework set up by the 1998 Act. It was not exceptional, even although it took 25 years for it to ever be used. The test of reasonableness did not require high scrutiny. It was to be assessed by ordinary principles. This meant, for example, the question was not whether or not the Secretary of State could have looked at more material as to how the Bill was to operate but rather whether what he looked at was enough for him to make a reasonable and reasoned decision.
There are one or two aspects of the criticisms that Lady Haldane had some sympathy with but the key to her decision was even if that reduced one of the reasons given that would not of itself give a basis for reducing the decision. I think that this is the key point going forward. If that is the correct test the prospects of a successful appeal are modest to non existent. You need to reduce not one or two of the reasons but enough of them to bring the whole edifice down. If I was advising my client on this I would tell them not to appeal.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sale-Century-Inside-Russian-Revolution/dp/0349112606
So I was hoping the SG would succeed here. I wasn't really expecting them to though. Rather like VAR, there would need to have been a clear and obvious error by the UKG and there wasn't. There is an impact on Equalities Law and Equalities Law is a Westminster matter. The UKG case rested on those 2 facts and they are facts.
The area where I thought they might have a sniff of a chance was on materiality - ie is the impact on the rest of the UK expected in practice to be material? If not maybe you can argue the UKG acted unjustifiably. I would argue that actually. But I guess this is not the same as the UKG acted illegally.
I appreciate that this analysis, such as it is, deriving mostly from googleable sources, gets our Ukraine Brigade up in arms.
Likewise (@kini talking to you here), it is important to understand the motivations for Hamas in its actions against Israel. It is both aggrieved at its perceived injustice of the land split, and also wishes to exterminate the land of Israel for some reason or other. I can understand both these views without believing that they are justified in holding them.
One can understand why Russia's elite feel the way they do, and still conclude Boo and Hoo.
https://www.davidmellordesign.com/kitchen-knives-and-boards
Various people were talking about Opinel, the French brand who do good value folding knives and also more regular kitchen knives.
And Leon mentioned a Cornish brand called Wolf & Dingo with strangely shaped handles (afaics), and an unusual grip (index finger along the blade) which is described by Rick Stein (that may be the one you meant):
https://www.atkinson-art.co.uk/product-category/wolf-dingo-chef-knives-for-valhalla/
Discussing it from 23:00 in this programme:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p09vzyvr/rick-steins-cornwall-series-2-episode-4
(IMO Leon needs to explain how much he has cooked with that one before I'll take that recommendation. A Leon "technically" covers a lot of sins.)
Leon's post is was here:
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4621606/#Comment_4621606
(Also includes an Opinel piccie).
If it is a present, I'd honestly consider asking the chap first, especially if you are in for £250-£500, as for some people their cooking knives are as personal as their underpants - or at least making sure there is possibility of return in case of wrong choice. It may be he has a knife he's been dreaming about for years.
And the answer would appear to be a resounding "no".
The episode is pure padding and excuse for the hosts to go and gorge at a fine restaurant.
I think its a bit of a misdescription to describe this as a defeat for Harry. The test for summary decree is a high one and "reasonable prospects" doesn't necessarily mean that that defence will work. But he's going back to the witness box.
Surely he applied for a Summary Judgement, and was told no, it would need to be fully argued in court.
That's what (or one of the many whats) Mr Trump is upset about - he was found liable in a summary judgement on the facts on two of his New York Civil Fraud charges, and the others are being tried in open court now.
Lab 417
Con 157
LD 34
SNP 18
PC 4
Grn 1
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2023/08/britain-predicts-who-would-win-election-held-today
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/12/08/how-david-weiss-may-plan-to-prove-his-case-against-hunter-biden/
Even Leon might be impressed by the $300k plus spent on sex workers in a single year.
It's amazing what you can learn from PB! Thanks again.
First, some years ago, social workers did an experiment and placed two teenage girls in the foster care of a single man. (This happened in Bellevue, the wealthy suburb just south of where I live.)
The results were what anyone in the real world should have expected. He had sex with both of the girls.
Second, there was scandal in a men's state prison in Baltimore. As one woud expect, most of the inmates were young black men. Under civil service rules, some young black women were hired as guards. As anyone in the real world would expect, a few of these fell in love with inmates.
A state senator, a middle-aged black woman, who does live in the real world, suggested from then on the prison should hire only men, and ugly men at that.
Third, in the US it is common to joke about male prisoners being raped by other males. We shouldn't, given the damage it may do to those raped. (In one of Tony Hillerman's Navajo detective stories, "The Talking God", such a rape helps form the character of one of the creepiest muderers-for-hire I've ever read about.)
In all three of these, there is a common element: a refusal to accept realities about some men -- and some women.
NEW THREAD
Indeed Russia was integrated into many Western organisations until they ballsed it up for themselves.
In 1853, the US bought another slice of Mexican territory, the Gadsden purchase:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase
(After the US Civil War ended in 1865, the US sent guns and troops to the Mexican border to support the Mexicans resisting French rule. For example, General Philip Sheridan transferred some 30,000 rifles to the Mexicans.
FDR's "good neighbor" policy improved relations with Mexico enough so that Mexico joined the allies in WW II, and something like 250,000 Mexican men joined the US armed forces.
George W. Bush wisely made improving relations with Mexico a main objective of his foreign policy, and achieved some successes.)