Today in Parliament the PM talks about hardworking postmasters serving their communities suffering an outrageous miscarriage of justice and promises such a law. He even sends out to Tory party members the following message.
Better advice; better political instincts; better informed and ahead of others when it comes to the topics that matter and the actions to be taken.
You deserve a lot of praise for campaigning on this issue via PB and other outlets. However, the only reason that Sunak is acting on this now is because of the public response to the ITV drama.
The lesson here is that to get anything changed you must engender a public outcry - the bigger the outcry, the bigger the change. Not easy to do if you're not an ITV drama commissioner.
The drama touched a nerve because it epitomised what a lot of people feel about how this country is being run - for the benefit of a few, who think only of themselves, take the rest of us for mugs and are quite willing to abuse their power, even at the expense of others' lives, businesses, livelihoods and happiness.
It is people like Nick Wallis, Computer Weekly and those lawyers who worked for the subpostmasters who deserve the real praise. And ITV for having the courage and budget to make this story real in a way that touched people's hearts. I bet they never imagined it would get this reaction.
What Sunak has announced today is a start but there is much still to be done so the pressure needs to be kept up. I have not in fact seen the details because for work clients I have over the last two days been writing articles on the computer law and whistleblowing aspects of this. But now I have some time to catch up.
There is a certain irony of course that ITV's own boss is one of those who might and probably should face criminal charges over this.
If you mean Adam Crozier, I read he was actually in charge of Royal Mail which is completely separate from the Post Office
Come off it Mr Inconsistent.
Starmer was boss of the CPS who prosecuted 3 people and you want him to serve 5 years in Pentonville because the buck stops with him. And Crozier, who was in ultimate charge of the Post Office by dint of being boss of Royal Mail you give a free pass, like he is Boris Johnson or something.
You’re very weird, but you’re right here. He does bear some responsibility for it, what I read was wrong if wiki is right. Though why I’d give him a free pass is beyond me
You must have a long list of the guilty which is fair enough. But where do you place disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who allowed his Chancellor to significantly delay payments to the sub-Postmasters? Oh and who as Prime Minister allowed Fujitsu billions of pounds of Government IT contracts post scandal?
I wonder whether Fujitsu winning contracts is down to the UK business being a creation of the government in the first place?
I know it is a long time since Tony Benn et al but it was basically the company of choice for government systems at that time.
The civil service has a long memory.
The attraction of taking over ICL was that the latter was basically HMG’s computer company
A little factoid that hasn’t been much noticed is that the head of Fujitsu UK during much of the relevant period is the husband of the Education Minister.
I’m surprised Starmer didn’t go on the Post Office scandal.
His silence has been absolutely thunderous.
Given New Labour commissioned and pushed out Horizon they're up to their necks in it. He's decided silence is the best strategy and is probably all too happy for Ed Davey to take the hit.
Can you people take responsibility for anything? It was the brainchild of Peter Lilley when he was a minister in Major's Government. Not absolving the 1997-2010 administration but, really, do some basic fact checking before spouting off will you?
Nothing wrong with my facts.
The Herd just can't stand it. They want to pretend it had nothing to do with them.
Nothing at all.
"The Herd"; "the Blob"...
Examples of Tory paranoia.
Nah, reflects our sheep-like regulars who are desperate to scrub any responsibility of Labour from the record.
There's plenty on here. We all know their names.
There is a time-value element to this which is quite important. The evidence for a huge miscarriage of justice has grown over time, as have the efforts to conceal it.
Blaming the Tories for commissioning it in the 90s is silly. Blaming the Tories for awarding Vennels a CBE in 2019 , along with Cabinet Office and NHS jobs... seems fair to me.
The basic idea of a computerised post office counter system reporting to HQ, doing the books etc was sensible. In fact, the standard way of doing things in most of retail.
The problem was
1) The implementation was crap 2) The crapness resulted in the prosecutions. 3) Managers with write-only minds failed to notice anything 4) When they did notice, they lied and covered up. Then lied and covered up. And carried on with the prosecutions. 5) As this went up the chain, so did the lying about it. Until everyone who knew was lying like Professors of Lying at Lying University in Lyingshire. 6) Meanwhile they were doing "Fuck you, pay me"* to all the SPMs
1) was required to create the disaster. But 2-6) were required to make the slow motion disaster destroy so many lives.
1) on it's own might have resulted in a handful of mistaken prosecutions, before the fuck up was corrected.
That's a good (but sad...) list. I'd just like to add two points:
*) Essentially, the cover-up caused this mess. When the PO realised something was wrong - which they must have done fairly early on - instead of admitting it and sorting it out, they lied and continued as before.
Strictly, when the PO realised something was wrong, they were willing to fund an independent investigation and fund an independent mediation scheme. Arbuthnot has said that his initial interactions with Vennells et al were constructive.
When they realised that what was wrong was a huge iceberg that would sink the entire ship, then somehow - yet to be established - they decided to obstruct and cover up. Which is shameful, and the main task of the inquiry to uncover.
Paradoxically, their original willingness to open their books is evidence that, at the top of the organisation at least, they didn’t have a full understanding of the abject shambles they were sitting on, long after it was apparent to people further down whose working lives were deep within it.
The people at the top are ignorant of shit long after those further down are deep within it.
In the beginning, there was a plan, And then came the assumptions, And the assumptions were without form, And the plan without substance,
And the darkness was upon the face of the workers, And they spoke among themselves saying, "It is a crock of shit and it stinks."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, Such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor Of the company With very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan And saw that it was good, And the Plan became Policy.
And this, my friend, is how shit happens.
That’s very evident from the evidence to the inquiry from Miller, Sweetman and Roberts. Compare and contrast.
The problem the inquiry has is that people who have worked their way up to senior management rarely take strong positions and have expertise in the politics of compromise such that their real views rarely get set down anywhere as written evidence; all of them are constantly adjusting for what (they think) those around them think, and things are decided not in formal set piece meetings but in informal unrecorded chats. Coupled with their hazy recollections, and some probable deliberate amnesia, and they’re probably going to have to blame them all. Which will mean that any meaningful penalties will be corporate rather than individual.
John Tuld : Maybe you could tell me what is going on. And please, speak as you might to a young child. Or a golden retriever. It wasn't brains that brought me here; I assure you that.
We are forever seeing TV chefs swanning off to some distant shore and eulogising about the 'Street Food' that they purchase from some squalid shack that nobody in their right mind would go anywhere near.
If you want street food, buy a Greggs steak bake and eat it as you walk down the pavement.
A Cornish pasty surely?
Isn't that what strip-tease artiste's in St Ives's burlesque houses used to wear - strategically?
pastie - small circular flesh-coloured fabric disks used to obscure the nipple and enable striptease artists to remain within local regulations. See also merkin.
pasty - a combination of certain meat and veg folded within a strip of pastry with the open edge closed by a crimp; the crimp provides a way of holding it if your hands are dirty. Claimed as a cultural artifact by the Cornish.
also
pasty - pale wan expression worn by a Caucasian who has seen or eaten something they find disagreeable
Is the strip-tease pastie an American thing?
Certainly as old as the Moulin Rouge - so I'd guess even older. Though the burlesque craze a few years ago on the back of 'Betty Paige Madness' really brought it to the fore here.
I don't recall ever seeing one in an American strip club, but at a birthday party a burlesque performer was invited to give a 'dance' class as entertainment, and handed them out to the guests
Yeah - in my experience the burlesque scene was mad for them. Working as a photographer at the time it was extremely tedious waiting for someone to try and 'safety glue' a pastie to their boob 20 times before giving up and just using sellotape.
Gentleman would have offered to assist. Did you?
Sadly, being a geek, I was too busy adjusting the lights.
Today in Parliament the PM talks about hardworking postmasters serving their communities suffering an outrageous miscarriage of justice and promises such a law. He even sends out to Tory party members the following message.
Better advice; better political instincts; better informed and ahead of others when it comes to the topics that matter and the actions to be taken.
You deserve a lot of praise for campaigning on this issue via PB and other outlets. However, the only reason that Sunak is acting on this now is because of the public response to the ITV drama.
The lesson here is that to get anything changed you must engender a public outcry - the bigger the outcry, the bigger the change. Not easy to do if you're not an ITV drama commissioner.
The drama touched a nerve because it epitomised what a lot of people feel about how this country is being run - for the benefit of a few, who think only of themselves, take the rest of us for mugs and are quite willing to abuse their power, even at the expense of others' lives, businesses, livelihoods and happiness.
It is people like Nick Wallis, Computer Weekly and those lawyers who worked for the subpostmasters who deserve the real praise. And ITV for having the courage and budget to make this story real in a way that touched people's hearts. I bet they never imagined it would get this reaction.
What Sunak has announced today is a start but there is much still to be done so the pressure needs to be kept up. I have not in fact seen the details because for work clients I have over the last two days been writing articles on the computer law and whistleblowing aspects of this. But now I have some time to catch up.
There is a certain irony of course that ITV's own boss is one of those who might and probably should face criminal charges over this.
If you mean Adam Crozier, I read he was actually in charge of Royal Mail which is completely separate from the Post Office
Come off it Mr Inconsistent.
Starmer was boss of the CPS who prosecuted 3 people and you want him to serve 5 years in Pentonville because the buck stops with him. And Crozier, who was in ultimate charge of the Post Office by dint of being boss of Royal Mail you give a free pass, like he is Boris Johnson or something.
You’re very weird, but you’re right here. He does bear some responsibility for it, what I read was wrong if wiki is right. Though why I’d give him a free pass is beyond me
You must have a long list of the guilty which is fair enough. But where do you place disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who allowed his Chancellor to significantly delay payments to the sub-Postmasters? Oh and who as Prime Minister allowed Fujitsu billions of pounds of Government IT contracts post scandal?
I wonder whether Fujitsu winning contracts is down to the UK business being a creation of the government in the first place?
I know it is a long time since Tony Benn et al but it was basically the company of choice for government systems at that time.
The civil service has a long memory.
The attraction of taking over ICL was that the latter was basically HMG’s computer company
A little factoid that hasn’t been much noticed is that the head of Fujitsu UK during much of the relevant period is the husband of the Education Minister.
Sorry. I've accidentally flagged you. Just wondering. Which one of the dozens of Education Ministers during the relevant period that would be?
In Washington, and in most European capitals, no one expected Ukraine to survive in February 2022. The CIA director, William J. Burns, had secretly flown to Kyiv at Biden’s request, warning Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Russia was planning to assassinate him.
“They spoke about the physical liquidation of our leadership, about the creation of filtration and concentration camps,” said Zelensky’s national security adviser, Oleksiy Danilov. “But what could we do? We kept asking: give us weapons. But they didn’t really give weapons to us.”
As the United States shut down its embassy in Kyiv ahead of the invasion, it did ship some weapons to great fanfare, such as Javelin antitank missiles. But the quantity was puny: only about 90 Javelins, according to Danilov. Then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, while also briefed about the hopelessness of the Ukrainian cause, had overruled internal objections and authorized a heftier load of about 2,000 NLAW missiles.
Good for him (Boris Johnson). Bojo made many mistakes but on Ukraine his behaviour was correct.
I doubt Sunak, or Starmer for that matter, would have done the same. The safer option would have been to hide behind the consensus that it was a lost cause.
Today in Parliament the PM talks about hardworking postmasters serving their communities suffering an outrageous miscarriage of justice and promises such a law. He even sends out to Tory party members the following message.
Better advice; better political instincts; better informed and ahead of others when it comes to the topics that matter and the actions to be taken.
You deserve a lot of praise for campaigning on this issue via PB and other outlets. However, the only reason that Sunak is acting on this now is because of the public response to the ITV drama.
The lesson here is that to get anything changed you must engender a public outcry - the bigger the outcry, the bigger the change. Not easy to do if you're not an ITV drama commissioner.
The drama touched a nerve because it epitomised what a lot of people feel about how this country is being run - for the benefit of a few, who think only of themselves, take the rest of us for mugs and are quite willing to abuse their power, even at the expense of others' lives, businesses, livelihoods and happiness.
It is people like Nick Wallis, Computer Weekly and those lawyers who worked for the subpostmasters who deserve the real praise. And ITV for having the courage and budget to make this story real in a way that touched people's hearts. I bet they never imagined it would get this reaction.
What Sunak has announced today is a start but there is much still to be done so the pressure needs to be kept up. I have not in fact seen the details because for work clients I have over the last two days been writing articles on the computer law and whistleblowing aspects of this. But now I have some time to catch up.
There is a certain irony of course that ITV's own boss is one of those who might and probably should face criminal charges over this.
If you mean Adam Crozier, I read he was actually in charge of Royal Mail which is completely separate from the Post Office
Come off it Mr Inconsistent.
Starmer was boss of the CPS who prosecuted 3 people and you want him to serve 5 years in Pentonville because the buck stops with him. And Crozier, who was in ultimate charge of the Post Office by dint of being boss of Royal Mail you give a free pass, like he is Boris Johnson or something.
You’re very weird, but you’re right here. He does bear some responsibility for it, what I read was wrong if wiki is right. Though why I’d give him a free pass is beyond me
You must have a long list of the guilty which is fair enough. But where do you place disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who allowed his Chancellor to significantly delay payments to the sub-Postmasters? Oh and who as Prime Minister allowed Fujitsu billions of pounds of Government IT contracts post scandal?
I wonder whether Fujitsu winning contracts is down to the UK business being a creation of the government in the first place?
I know it is a long time since Tony Benn et al but it was basically the company of choice for government systems at that time.
The civil service has a long memory.
The attraction of taking over ICL was that the latter was basically HMG’s computer company
A little factoid that hasn’t been much noticed is that the head of Fujitsu UK during much of the relevant period is the husband of the Education Minister.
Sorry. I've accidentally flagged you. Just wondering. Which one of the dozens of Education Ministers during the relevant period that would be?
Biden disapproval rating at +15% latest YouGov poll for Economist.
He's got a hell of a job turning this around in less than twelve months.
He doesn't need to turn it around, he just needs Trump's ratings to be worse. Trump is at 9%, so the swing required to get to "positive territory" is 3% not 7.5%. You also need to factor in the number of people who are saying disapprove because Biden isn't left-wing enough but the majority of whom will suck it up when the only realistic alternative is Trump.
Today in Parliament the PM talks about hardworking postmasters serving their communities suffering an outrageous miscarriage of justice and promises such a law. He even sends out to Tory party members the following message.
Better advice; better political instincts; better informed and ahead of others when it comes to the topics that matter and the actions to be taken.
You deserve a lot of praise for campaigning on this issue via PB and other outlets. However, the only reason that Sunak is acting on this now is because of the public response to the ITV drama.
The lesson here is that to get anything changed you must engender a public outcry - the bigger the outcry, the bigger the change. Not easy to do if you're not an ITV drama commissioner.
The drama touched a nerve because it epitomised what a lot of people feel about how this country is being run - for the benefit of a few, who think only of themselves, take the rest of us for mugs and are quite willing to abuse their power, even at the expense of others' lives, businesses, livelihoods and happiness.
It is people like Nick Wallis, Computer Weekly and those lawyers who worked for the subpostmasters who deserve the real praise. And ITV for having the courage and budget to make this story real in a way that touched people's hearts. I bet they never imagined it would get this reaction.
What Sunak has announced today is a start but there is much still to be done so the pressure needs to be kept up. I have not in fact seen the details because for work clients I have over the last two days been writing articles on the computer law and whistleblowing aspects of this. But now I have some time to catch up.
There is a certain irony of course that ITV's own boss is one of those who might and probably should face criminal charges over this.
If you mean Adam Crozier, I read he was actually in charge of Royal Mail which is completely separate from the Post Office
Come off it Mr Inconsistent.
Starmer was boss of the CPS who prosecuted 3 people and you want him to serve 5 years in Pentonville because the buck stops with him. And Crozier, who was in ultimate charge of the Post Office by dint of being boss of Royal Mail you give a free pass, like he is Boris Johnson or something.
You’re very weird, but you’re right here. He does bear some responsibility for it, what I read was wrong if wiki is right. Though why I’d give him a free pass is beyond me
You must have a long list of the guilty which is fair enough. But where do you place disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who allowed his Chancellor to significantly delay payments to the sub-Postmasters? Oh and who as Prime Minister allowed Fujitsu billions of pounds of Government IT contracts post scandal?
I thought he set up the inquiry. But he’s out of politics now, it doesn’t really matter what he said or did, there won’t be any consequences for him
What was the mistake? They got convictions which means the cases were correctly prosecuted based on the evidence available.
The mistake was being the leader of the Labour Party. Even worse. Being streets ahead in the polls as Tory bollocks collapses under the weight of its own bullshit.
In Washington, and in most European capitals, no one expected Ukraine to survive in February 2022. The CIA director, William J. Burns, had secretly flown to Kyiv at Biden’s request, warning Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Russia was planning to assassinate him.
“They spoke about the physical liquidation of our leadership, about the creation of filtration and concentration camps,” said Zelensky’s national security adviser, Oleksiy Danilov. “But what could we do? We kept asking: give us weapons. But they didn’t really give weapons to us.”
As the United States shut down its embassy in Kyiv ahead of the invasion, it did ship some weapons to great fanfare, such as Javelin antitank missiles. But the quantity was puny: only about 90 Javelins, according to Danilov. Then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, while also briefed about the hopelessness of the Ukrainian cause, had overruled internal objections and authorized a heftier load of about 2,000 NLAW missiles.
Good for him (Boris Johnson). Bojo made many mistakes but on Ukraine his behaviour was correct.
Would that that spirit was still continuing.
Much of the supporting coalition has turned decidedly lukewarm in the face of, in particular, american paralysis. Yes, maintaining longer term support was always going to be difficult, but it seems fewer and fewer nations care with each passing day - like 2014 it is becoming the new normal, and they will decide to call it quits sooner or later.
HS2 to Birmingham may cost £65bn, railway boss says
The London to Birmingham stretch of the HS2 railway could cost more than £65bn in current prices, the boss of the company building it has said.
Sir Jonathan Thompson said a rise in the cost of materials such as concrete and steel over the past few years have added £8bn to £10bn.
In October the government cancelled the sections between the West Midlands, Manchester, and the East Midlands.
Now HS2 Ltd and the government disagree on the cost of building the rest.
Will it even happen? I feel like I should tell the government I could do it for half the amount, fail to deliver, and the country would therefore save a huge amount for the same outcome.
What was the mistake? They got convictions which means the cases were correctly prosecuted based on the evidence available.
Had Sir Keir decided the cases shouldn’t have been prosecuted, possibly because Alan Bates setting up his alliance, or the stories coming out about the faulty software, the letters to Sir Ed Davey, we would be hailing his wisdom.
The way you are framing it, the only way the CPS could really make a mistake is if people were found not guilty after they’d recommended prosecution
We are forever seeing TV chefs swanning off to some distant shore and eulogising about the 'Street Food' that they purchase from some squalid shack that nobody in their right mind would go anywhere near.
If you want street food, buy a Greggs steak bake and eat it as you walk down the pavement.
Last year, I was two miles from the end of a marathon, and running through Croydon. I was really hungry, so I nipped into a Greggs, bought a sausage roll, and ate it as I jogged down the road.
To be quite clear: this was *not* a good idea...
Absolutely. Running a marathon is never a good idea.
Pheidippides died after running the very first one, if that's not a red flag I don't know what is.
What was the mistake? They got convictions which means the cases were correctly prosecuted based on the evidence available.
The mistake was being the leader of the Labour Party. Even worse. Being streets ahead in the polls as Tory bollocks collapses under the weight of its own bullshit.
No the mistake, if we are talking about why I think he is a total snide, is blocking any chance of a deal with the EU, then heading up the campaign for a second referendum having been elected on it being ‘a point of principle’ to accept & implement the result
HS2 to Birmingham may cost £65bn, railway boss says
The London to Birmingham stretch of the HS2 railway could cost more than £65bn in current prices, the boss of the company building it has said.
Sir Jonathan Thompson said a rise in the cost of materials such as concrete and steel over the past few years have added £8bn to £10bn.
In October the government cancelled the sections between the West Midlands, Manchester, and the East Midlands.
Now HS2 Ltd and the government disagree on the cost of building the rest.
Will it even happen? I feel like I should tell the government I could do it for half the amount, fail to deliver, and the country would therefore save a huge amount for the same outcome.
As I have been saying for a long time on here now, let's just scrap it. Please. Yes I know a lot of money has been spent but we can save much more by just cancelling it.
HS2 to Birmingham may cost £65bn, railway boss says
The London to Birmingham stretch of the HS2 railway could cost more than £65bn in current prices, the boss of the company building it has said.
Sir Jonathan Thompson said a rise in the cost of materials such as concrete and steel over the past few years have added £8bn to £10bn.
In October the government cancelled the sections between the West Midlands, Manchester, and the East Midlands.
Now HS2 Ltd and the government disagree on the cost of building the rest.
Will it even happen? I feel like I should tell the government I could do it for half the amount, fail to deliver, and the country would therefore save a huge amount for the same outcome.
As I have been saying for a long time on here now, let's just scrap it. Please. Yes I know a lot of money has been spent but we can save much more by just cancelling it.
Goodnight 👍
I vote for scrapping it, then re-commissioning it in 2028, scrapping it in 2034, and re-commission it in 2038 as thats probably close to what HMG will do.
JUST IN: Chris Christie Is Dropping Out Of 2024 GOP Presidential Race
Fun while it lasted, though since he says he won't vote for Biden there are some things he won't do to stop Trump.
Kept trying to tell you PBers that Chris Christie is a MASSIVE waste of space. Ditto time.
Never thought it would amount to anything. It was just nice to see someone calling Trump out, given the others are too afraid to do so, even when he attacks them, because they still have hopes of having careers in future.
We are forever seeing TV chefs swanning off to some distant shore and eulogising about the 'Street Food' that they purchase from some squalid shack that nobody in their right mind would go anywhere near.
If you want street food, buy a Greggs steak bake and eat it as you walk down the pavement.
Last year, I was two miles from the end of a marathon, and running through Croydon. I was really hungry, so I nipped into a Greggs, bought a sausage roll, and ate it as I jogged down the road.
To be quite clear: this was *not* a good idea...
Absolutely. Running a marathon is never a good idea.
Pheidippides died after running the very first one, if that's not a red flag I don't know what is.
Wasn't that tragedy result of Pheidippides skipping the last power-bar stop before Athens?
Hey!!! Great to hear from you! How’s the MH? Good I hope xxxx
Chiding someone who has shared their mental health issues, and with a snarky mental health comment. Classy.
I only asked how they were
Someone with genuine MH issues, esp if they’ve recovered, would be reluctant to use phrases like ‘weirdly obsessed’ about others. I take that to be a dig at my own MH
JUST IN: Chris Christie Is Dropping Out Of 2024 GOP Presidential Race
Fun while it lasted, though since he says he won't vote for Biden there are some things he won't do to stop Trump.
Kept trying to tell you PBers that Chris Christie is a MASSIVE waste of space. Ditto time.
Never thought it would amount to anything. It was just nice to see someone calling Trump out, given the others are too afraid to do so, even when he attacks them, because they still have hopes of having careers in future.
His pre-Governor career as a prosecutor means he is worth listening to when he says Trump is doing jail time.
Seattle Times - Judge says Donald Trump won’t give own closing argument at civil fraud trial after disputing rules
SSI - Translation: Donald Trump chickens out again yet again in yet another court case.
Don't know about y'all but on my humble YouTube feed, a LOT of vis about "Sovereign Citizens" (a thing in the USA today) and the like "disputing" in front of judges in courts from El Lay to Frostbite Falls. With SVs getting the short end of the stick, in courts of law AND public opinion.
Interesting (perhaps) does NOT appear to be ideological divide let alone polarization regarding these folks, who in 99.46% of instances come off as crazed, conniving, or both.
Two thoughts:
1. Doesn't this sound just like the behavior of Donald J. Trump?; and
2. When, if ever, will significant share of Trump's support - and also undecided & swing voters - draw the same conclusion, and scratch him from their dance card?
3. Extra bonus third though: Biden right now is a minus for too many of the voters he needs for reelection, which is limiting factor on #2 above; whereas improvement in Biden's job rating, etc. could increase contrast AND impact of #1.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
If a sub-postmaster or mistress was prosecuted and convicted it’s because a jury believed they were guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. They believed that because the evidence was fabricated and/or alibis were suppressed by the Post Office. That’s the issue with the convictions. They were based on lies.
The real issue with the convictions is that they were based on a non-existent crime. There was no evidence that any money was missing at all. Just a figure from Horizon which was, frankly, plucked out of Horizon's arse.
That was the fundamental lie.
All the other lies were in support of this.
That there was no crime is how, I think - but will need to do some more thinking on this overnight - the concerns about Parliament overriding the courts will have to be addressed.
I may write some more about this but only once - and if - I've clarified my thoughts.
JUST IN: Chris Christie Is Dropping Out Of 2024 GOP Presidential Race
Fun while it lasted, though since he says he won't vote for Biden there are some things he won't do to stop Trump.
Kept trying to tell you PBers that Chris Christie is a MASSIVE waste of space. Ditto time.
Never thought it would amount to anything. It was just nice to see someone calling Trump out, given the others are too afraid to do so, even when he attacks them, because they still have hopes of having careers in future.
His pre-Governor career as a prosecutor means he is worth listening to when he says Trump is doing jail time.
What are views on this legal point by Chris Christie's fellow former US District Attorney, Rudy Giuliani?
You do have a point, however.
Though personally, for legal advice will stick with old, trusted family firm - Dewey, Cheatam & Howe.
If a sub-postmaster or mistress was prosecuted and convicted it’s because a jury believed they were guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. They believed that because the evidence was fabricated and/or alibis were suppressed by the Post Office. That’s the issue with the convictions. They were based on lies.
The real issue with the convictions is that they were based on a non-existent crime. There was no evidence that any money was missing at all. Just a figure from Horizon which was, frankly, plucked out of Horizon's arse.
That was the fundamental lie.
All the other lies were in support of this.
That there was no crime is how, I think - but will need to do some more thinking on this overnight - the concerns about Parliament overriding the courts will have to be addressed.
I may write some more about this but only once - and if - I've clarified my thoughts.
Seattle Times - Judge says Donald Trump won’t give own closing argument at civil fraud trial after disputing rules
SSI - Translation: Donald Trump chickens out again yet again in yet another court case.
Don't know about y'all but on my humble YouTube feed, a LOT of vis about "Sovereign Citizens" (a thing in the USA today) and the like "disputing" in front of judges in courts from El Lay to Frostbite Falls. With SVs getting the short end of the stick, in courts of law AND public opinion.
Interesting (perhaps) does NOT appear to be ideological divide let alone polarization regarding these folks, who in 99.46% of instances come off as crazed, conniving, or both.
Two thoughts:
1. Doesn't this sound just like the behavior of Donald J. Trump?; and
2. When, if ever, will significant share of Trump's support - and also undecided & swing voters - draw the same conclusion, and scratch him from their dance card?
3. Extra bonus third though: Biden right now is a minus for too many of the voters he needs for reelection, which is limiting factor on #2 above; whereas improvement in Biden's job rating, etc. could increase contrast AND impact of #1.
We have Sovereign Citizens here, although they usually call themselves "Freemen of the Land"
The solicitor on the Seema Misra case, the lady in the show who had ECT and was sent to prison whilst pregnant, knew something was up with Horizon, and sat on it
If a sub-postmaster or mistress was prosecuted and convicted it’s because a jury believed they were guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. They believed that because the evidence was fabricated and/or alibis were suppressed by the Post Office. That’s the issue with the convictions. They were based on lies.
The real issue with the convictions is that they were based on a non-existent crime. There was no evidence that any money was missing at all. Just a figure from Horizon which was, frankly, plucked out of Horizon's arse.
That was the fundamental lie.
All the other lies were in support of this.
That there was no crime is how, I think - but will need to do some more thinking on this overnight - the concerns about Parliament overriding the courts will have to be addressed.
I may write some more about this but only once - and if - I've clarified my thoughts.
Does it help the cause, that most of postmasters, etc. were charged, prosecuted and convicted under a legal theory that has proven to be a perversion of justice? Thus wholesale reason for broad remedy, including changes to statute law, to provide redress and also to prevent future miscarriages.
Then courts focus on remaining evidence, issues, cases. And the Post Office get cracking on making things better instead of worser, for techies and posties.
Today in Parliament the PM talks about hardworking postmasters serving their communities suffering an outrageous miscarriage of justice and promises such a law. He even sends out to Tory party members the following message.
Better advice; better political instincts; better informed and ahead of others when it comes to the topics that matter and the actions to be taken.
You deserve a lot of praise for campaigning on this issue via PB and other outlets. However, the only reason that Sunak is acting on this now is because of the public response to the ITV drama.
The lesson here is that to get anything changed you must engender a public outcry - the bigger the outcry, the bigger the change. Not easy to do if you're not an ITV drama commissioner.
The drama touched a nerve because it epitomised what a lot of people feel about how this country is being run - for the benefit of a few, who think only of themselves, take the rest of us for mugs and are quite willing to abuse their power, even at the expense of others' lives, businesses, livelihoods and happiness.
It is people like Nick Wallis, Computer Weekly and those lawyers who worked for the subpostmasters who deserve the real praise. And ITV for having the courage and budget to make this story real in a way that touched people's hearts. I bet they never imagined it would get this reaction.
What Sunak has announced today is a start but there is much still to be done so the pressure needs to be kept up. I have not in fact seen the details because for work clients I have over the last two days been writing articles on the computer law and whistleblowing aspects of this. But now I have some time to catch up.
There is a certain irony of course that ITV's own boss is one of those who might and probably should face criminal charges over this.
If you mean Adam Crozier, I read he was actually in charge of Royal Mail which is completely separate from the Post Office
Come off it Mr Inconsistent.
Starmer was boss of the CPS who prosecuted 3 people and you want him to serve 5 years in Pentonville because the buck stops with him. And Crozier, who was in ultimate charge of the Post Office by dint of being boss of Royal Mail you give a free pass, like he is Boris Johnson or something.
You’re very weird, but you’re right here. He does bear some responsibility for it, what I read was wrong if wiki is right. Though why I’d give him a free pass is beyond me
You must have a long list of the guilty which is fair enough. But where do you place disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who allowed his Chancellor to significantly delay payments to the sub-Postmasters? Oh and who as Prime Minister allowed Fujitsu billions of pounds of Government IT contracts post scandal?
I wonder whether Fujitsu winning contracts is down to the UK business being a creation of the government in the first place?
I know it is a long time since Tony Benn et al but it was basically the company of choice for government systems at that time.
The civil service has a long memory.
The attraction of taking over ICL was that the latter was basically HMG’s computer company
A little factoid that hasn’t been much noticed is that the head of Fujitsu UK during much of the relevant period is the husband of the Education Minister.
Sorry. I've accidentally flagged you. Just wondering. Which one of the dozens of Education Ministers during the relevant period that would be?
Biden disapproval rating at +15% latest YouGov poll for Economist.
He's got a hell of a job turning this around in less than twelve months.
He doesn't need to turn it around, he just needs Trump's ratings to be worse. Trump is at 9%, so the swing required to get to "positive territory" is 3% not 7.5%. You also need to factor in the number of people who are saying disapprove because Biden isn't left-wing enough but the majority of whom will suck it up when the only realistic alternative is Trump.
A year ago Biden was at - 9 and Trump at - 18, what has happened to reverse their positions? Is it the record number of illegal immigrants crossing the border with Mexico?
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
Biden disapproval rating at +15% latest YouGov poll for Economist.
He's got a hell of a job turning this around in less than twelve months.
He doesn't need to turn it around, he just needs Trump's ratings to be worse. Trump is at 9%, so the swing required to get to "positive territory" is 3% not 7.5%. You also need to factor in the number of people who are saying disapprove because Biden isn't left-wing enough but the majority of whom will suck it up when the only realistic alternative is Trump.
A year ago Biden was at - 9 and Trump at - 18, what has happened to reverse their positions? Is it the record number of illegal immigrants crossing the border with Mexico?
Trump benefits when he is out of the news. Also, people are struggling with high prices.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
The same argument was made with regards to the US in both the first and second world wars.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
So the Post Office were paying out bonuses to their investigations and prosecutions departments…
“Post Office investigators were offered cash bonuses for every sub-postmaster convicted during the Horizon scandal, it has emerged.
“Alan Bates, the sub-postmaster who led the campaign for justice, joined a deluge of criticism over the practice on Wednesday, saying offering financial incentives for prosecutions was “appalling” as he highlighted the “horrendous” culture of the Post Office.
“Investigators with the Post Office described the incentive scheme as “part of the business”, with everyone in the security team “on a bonus”.
“Gary Thomas, who worked in the Post Office security team between 2000 and 2012, told the Post Office Horizon inquiry that the bonus targets affected how he went about his work. Mr Thomas branded all sub-postmasters “crooks” in emails concerning one victim who was posthumously cleared. The messages were handed to the inquiry, which resumes on Thursday.”
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
Quite: the idea that it is moral to remove support from someone who has been attacked is repugnant.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
"But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return."
Reinstating the 2014 border would be exceedingly hard for Putin to sell as a 'win' for Russia. It would also tell other dictators or ner-do-wells that their imperialistic dreams could go very wrong. What is more, it is morally correct. It is Ukrainian territory.
As for the 'nuclear escalation problem': I am now of the mind that it is bullshit, for several reasons. Firstly, Putin has not used them so far; even in March 2022 when humiliatingly forced to withdraw from vast swathes of Ukrainian territory. Neither in that autumn, when his forces again had to withdraw.
Secondly, nukes are of no advantage to him in this war. Tactical nukes are too small to be of much use, and the anger their use would cause could lose many of the few friends he has left in the international community. And strategic bombs are very blunt instruments; have the same problem wrt international support, but doubly so.
Thirdly, the use of nukes might cause NATO to get involved in a big way - and I believe Biden has warned Putin of that. A massive conventional response against the Russian forces in Ukraine. That also could lead to further escalaltion.
No, Putin will not use nukes in Ukraine. The upsides for him are few, and the downsides many.
Biden disapproval rating at +15% latest YouGov poll for Economist.
He's got a hell of a job turning this around in less than twelve months.
He doesn't need to turn it around, he just needs Trump's ratings to be worse. Trump is at 9%, so the swing required to get to "positive territory" is 3% not 7.5%. You also need to factor in the number of people who are saying disapprove because Biden isn't left-wing enough but the majority of whom will suck it up when the only realistic alternative is Trump.
A year ago Biden was at - 9 and Trump at - 18, what has happened to reverse their positions? Is it the record number of illegal immigrants crossing the border with Mexico?
Trump benefits when he is out of the news. Also, people are struggling with high prices.
Is Trump out of the news, or less in the news than a year ago? And inflation is half what it was a year ago. So I'm not sure either can explain why Trump is at a bit of a high point, and Biden at a low point right now.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
The same argument was made with regards to the US in both the first and second world wars.
This comparison has limited value. At both points the US had a very long history of immigration and integration. However both Sweden and Finland are characterised by very recent, rapid immigration and both have difficulties with integration and adaptation reflected in civil disorder (particularly Sweden) and the popularity of 'far right' parties further exacerbating tensions. Many assumptions people make about these countries are based on what they were like in the past and not how they are now.
In the case of Finland, I don't think the problem is insurmountable but it is going to require a lot of effort.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
Nobody would be attacking Russia if it was inside its internationally recognised borders. That includes withdrawing from South Ossetia and Transnistria, which is a humiliation for Mr Small One, but would end the conflict for them and mean they don't have to 'defend' anything.
The reason this deal can't be made is because the egos of the current fascist clowns running the Russian government won't let them accept it.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
There’s no ‘peace deal’ or ‘agreement’ possible with Russia. They’ve a longstanding history of ignoring any such agreements as they see fit.
The only permanent solution to the problem of Russia, is a very long Berlin Wall between Russia and Europe, on the 1991 border, and defended collectively by European nations backed by the threat of nuclear escalation.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
Quite: the idea that it is moral to remove support from someone who has been attacked is repugnant.
I am unconvinced. The 'appeal to morality' argument was much stronger in Afghanistan and we removed support there with terrible consequences, particularly for womens rights, that we don't spend any time discussing on here, despite the repeated interest in domestic issues relating to women's rights.
Few outside the west believes its claims to be on the side of good in pursuing its wars which is a reason behind the global ambivalence towards Russia. However in the case of Ukraine the strategy I have referred to is not actually withdrawing support, it could make it more sustainable and durable.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
Nobody would be attacking Russia if it was inside its internationally recognised borders. That includes withdrawing from South Ossetia and Transnistria, which is a humiliation for Mr Small One, but would end the conflict for them and mean they don't have to 'defend' anything.
The reason this deal can't be made is because the egos of the current fascist clowns running the Russian government won't let them accept it.
Another perspective is that the Russian psyche relies on peripheral wars. From a strategic western point of view it is desirable that these should be directed to the some conflict with Islamists in the middle east or alternatively with China. It is a strategic blunder on our part that it has ended up happening in Ukraine.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
Nobody would be attacking Russia if it was inside its internationally recognised borders. That includes withdrawing from South Ossetia and Transnistria, which is a humiliation for Mr Small One, but would end the conflict for them and mean they don't have to 'defend' anything.
The reason this deal can't be made is because the egos of the current fascist clowns running the Russian government won't let them accept it.
Another perspective is that the Russian psyche relies on peripheral wars. From a strategic western point of view it is desirable that these should be directed to the some conflict with Islamists in the middle east or alternatively with China. It is a strategic blunder on our part that it has ended up happening in Ukraine.
No. From a strategic point of view, it is desirable that Russia's psyche changes. And before you say "that won't happen," the rest of Europe has recovered from having serious wars at least every fifty years to relative peace and friendship.
There is zero reason why the Russian psyche has to be the way it is. It is that way because of a false mythos perpetuated by the Russian state, spread through the state-controlled media. If that leadership were to change, or its views change, then so would the 'Russian psyche', albeit slowly.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
On the contrary, the best defence of Europe is to keep the Ukranians fighting and killing Russians and wiping out Russian heavy weapons. Much better for both us and the Ukranians than having an occupied Ukraine and having to fight ourselves.
The risk to Europe massively goes up if Ukranian defeat and Russian re-equipment happens.
Biden disapproval rating at +15% latest YouGov poll for Economist.
He's got a hell of a job turning this around in less than twelve months.
He doesn't need to turn it around, he just needs Trump's ratings to be worse. Trump is at 9%, so the swing required to get to "positive territory" is 3% not 7.5%. You also need to factor in the number of people who are saying disapprove because Biden isn't left-wing enough but the majority of whom will suck it up when the only realistic alternative is Trump.
A year ago Biden was at - 9 and Trump at - 18, what has happened to reverse their positions? Is it the record number of illegal immigrants crossing the border with Mexico?
This poll suggests that's a strong possibility.
John Fetterman was blasted online for endorsing tougher immigration laws, but to Pennsylvania voters in this Quinnipiac poll? It's a net positive. Voters say net +26 they view him more favorably for it. Not just Republicans and indys, even among *Democrats* it improves his image. https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1745228184855924759
Also, note that some kind of bipartisan deal on the border is reasonably likely, as part of the ongoing negotiations over lifting the GOP funding blockage.
Today in Parliament the PM talks about hardworking postmasters serving their communities suffering an outrageous miscarriage of justice and promises such a law. He even sends out to Tory party members the following message.
Better advice; better political instincts; better informed and ahead of others when it comes to the topics that matter and the actions to be taken.
You deserve a lot of praise for campaigning on this issue via PB and other outlets. However, the only reason that Sunak is acting on this now is because of the public response to the ITV drama.
The lesson here is that to get anything changed you must engender a public outcry - the bigger the outcry, the bigger the change. Not easy to do if you're not an ITV drama commissioner.
The drama touched a nerve because it epitomised what a lot of people feel about how this country is being run - for the benefit of a few, who think only of themselves, take the rest of us for mugs and are quite willing to abuse their power, even at the expense of others' lives, businesses, livelihoods and happiness.
It is people like Nick Wallis, Computer Weekly and those lawyers who worked for the subpostmasters who deserve the real praise. And ITV for having the courage and budget to make this story real in a way that touched people's hearts. I bet they never imagined it would get this reaction.
What Sunak has announced today is a start but there is much still to be done so the pressure needs to be kept up. I have not in fact seen the details because for work clients I have over the last two days been writing articles on the computer law and whistleblowing aspects of this. But now I have some time to catch up.
There is a certain irony of course that ITV's own boss is one of those who might and probably should face criminal charges over this.
If you mean Adam Crozier, I read he was actually in charge of Royal Mail which is completely separate from the Post Office
Come off it Mr Inconsistent.
Starmer was boss of the CPS who prosecuted 3 people and you want him to serve 5 years in Pentonville because the buck stops with him. And Crozier, who was in ultimate charge of the Post Office by dint of being boss of Royal Mail you give a free pass, like he is Boris Johnson or something.
You’re very weird, but you’re right here. He does bear some responsibility for it, what I read was wrong if wiki is right. Though why I’d give him a free pass is beyond me
You must have a long list of the guilty which is fair enough. But where do you place disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who allowed his Chancellor to significantly delay payments to the sub-Postmasters? Oh and who as Prime Minister allowed Fujitsu billions of pounds of Government IT contracts post scandal?
I wonder whether Fujitsu winning contracts is down to the UK business being a creation of the government in the first place?
I know it is a long time since Tony Benn et al but it was basically the company of choice for government systems at that time.
The civil service has a long memory.
The attraction of taking over ICL was that the latter was basically HMG’s computer company
A little factoid that hasn’t been much noticed is that the head of Fujitsu UK during much of the relevant period is the husband of the Education Minister.
I have just been reading an article in today's MailOnLine "The Fat Cats of Fijutsu". The Keegans feature a lot in it along with photos of their £2 million property near Midhurst - one of, I believe, five properties they own.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
Quite: the idea that it is moral to remove support from someone who has been attacked is repugnant.
I am unconvinced. The 'appeal to morality' argument was much stronger in Afghanistan and we removed support there with terrible consequences, particularly for womens rights, that we don't spend any time discussing on here, despite the repeated interest in domestic issues relating to women's rights.
Few outside the west believes its claims to be on the side of good in pursuing its wars which is a reason behind the global ambivalence towards Russia. However in the case of Ukraine the strategy I have referred to is not actually withdrawing support, it could make it more sustainable and durable.
"...for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active,.." is a wish, not a strategy.
Ceding the occupied Black Sea coast to Russia doesn't make Ukraine more defensible; quite the opposite.
And it's clear from both the words and actions is Putin that for now he has no real interest in a deal. Indeed while the GOP block any further aid to Ukraine, he probably thinks he can win. You can't negotiate with Putin from a position of weakness - and ceding territory doesn't satisfy him, as Crimea proved.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
On the contrary, the best defence of Europe is to keep the Ukranians fighting and killing Russians and wiping out Russian heavy weapons. Much better for both us and the Ukranians than having an occupied Ukraine and having to fight ourselves.
The risk to Europe massively goes up if Ukranian defeat and Russian re-equipment happens.
I am not saying that Ukraine should 'stop fighting'. I am explaining the merits of the current unspoken policy - a managed conflict that consumes Russian resources. Even if you somehow forced Russia back to the 1991 border the risk of Russia regrouping and rearming and then starting up again would be the same, if not higher - and the situation would be made worse if the west then naively resumed trade with Russia under the guise of 'reconciliation' as it would be under pressure to do.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
Nobody would be attacking Russia if it was inside its internationally recognised borders. That includes withdrawing from South Ossetia and Transnistria, which is a humiliation for Mr Small One, but would end the conflict for them and mean they don't have to 'defend' anything.
The reason this deal can't be made is because the egos of the current fascist clowns running the Russian government won't let them accept it.
Another perspective is that the Russian psyche relies on peripheral wars. From a strategic western point of view it is desirable that these should be directed to the some conflict with Islamists in the middle east or alternatively with China. It is a strategic blunder on our part that it has ended up happening in Ukraine.
No. From a strategic point of view, it is desirable that Russia's psyche changes. And before you say "that won't happen," the rest of Europe has recovered from having serious wars at least every fifty years to relative peace and friendship.
There is zero reason why the Russian psyche has to be the way it is. It is that way because of a false mythos perpetuated by the Russian state, spread through the state-controlled media. If that leadership were to change, or its views change, then so would the 'Russian psyche', albeit slowly.
The UK has been involved in quite a few wars over the past 3 decades.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
President Zelensky is in Tallinn this morning, having arrived late last night from Vilnius, before going to Riga later today.
The Baltics, Poland and Ukraine are lock step in their determination to resist Russian aggression, and at the same time increasingly preparing for weakness in NATO, whether because Trump betrays the alliance, or some other reason. The point is, that the Central European democracies will not permit themselves to become the playthings of dictators ever again. Sweden is warning of war, in the Baltic we are actively preparing for it. Russia is clearly not invincible, and careful preparation can, as in Iraq, overcome much larger numbers. The Nordic/Baltic bloc, Poland, Romania are all NATO states (Sweden joining within weeks), and Ukraine is rapidly integrating with the NATO command.
Russia is now and will continue to be a direct threat to European peace, however if Russia chooses to launch an attack, whether the USA can be relied on to defend its allies or not, then Putin may find the tempting morsels for his imperialist ambitions will be extremely difficult to swallow. I have often written here about the fear and determination that haunts Tallinn. Now we are standing to and facing the threat head on. After formal Swedish accession to NATO, expect to see further major announcements of increasing preparedness from all eight Nordic and Baltic countries together with Poland, Romania and Ukraine. Estonia has donated substantially all of its defence budget to Ukraine, and has also doubled military expenditure to over 4% of GDP.
Meanwhile the UK is continuing to run down its own defences. Yet another catastrophic decision from the played out Conservative government.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
There’s no ‘peace deal’ or ‘agreement’ possible with Russia. They’ve a longstanding history of ignoring any such agreements as they see fit.
The only permanent solution to the problem of Russia, is a very long Berlin Wall between Russia and Europe, on the 1991 border, and defended collectively by European nations backed by the threat of nuclear escalation.
The Berlin Wall was built to keep the 'citizens inside'. The wall you describe would be a Trumplike Wall, to keep 'the others out'
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
Quite: the idea that it is moral to remove support from someone who has been attacked is repugnant.
I am unconvinced. The 'appeal to morality' argument was much stronger in Afghanistan and we removed support there with terrible consequences, particularly for womens rights, that we don't spend any time discussing on here, despite the repeated interest in domestic issues relating to women's rights.
Few outside the west believes its claims to be on the side of good in pursuing its wars which is a reason behind the global ambivalence towards Russia. However in the case of Ukraine the strategy I have referred to is not actually withdrawing support, it could make it more sustainable and durable.
"...for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active,.." is a wish, not a strategy.
It's also the current reality. For the entirity of 2023 the net territorial gain for the entire conflict was about 450km2 to the Russians. That's nugatory considering the length of the front is 600km.
Since the failure of the Ukrainian cucksteroffensive nobody is doing anything or going anywhere beyond sporadic, attritional artillery and missile exchanges.
It is, in fact, de-escalated, unresolved and still active.
The Tories and their bunch of media arse lickers need to stfu about Starmers role . He’s not going to be aware of every single prosecution in England .
Total hypocrisy. No 10 employed Vennells as cabinet office director and they still are handing out contracts to Fujitsu .
💥 These switchers have left the Tories "for good", furious at lack of delivery of promises in 14 years of govt
💥 Rishi Sunak has gone from a breath of fresh air a year ago to "typical politician who never answers a question", "out of touch", "spineless", and "false"
💥 Sunak's new year election visits have been noticed - and have gone down like a cup of cold sick ("oily", "staged", PM "full of himself")
💥 Tax cuts viewed as a "sweetener" just to get votes
💥 Keir Starmer seen as "weak", "spineless", "unchallenging", "boring" and - above all else - as having "no plan". They are voting Labour *despite* Keir Starmer rather than because of him. Lack of plan/square one attack by Sunak was the only clip that went down well
💥 The person who got the best reception - and is a threat to both parties - is Nigel Farage, seen as "relatable", "strong", shown to be "in touch" by time in the jungle. All bar one said they would vote for Nigel Farage if they had the chance
💥 Tory win would leave people "gutted", Labour win a mix of "worried" and "hopeful". Hard to argue that - as the polling of direct switchers shows - these voters are coming back to the Conservatives any time soon
💥 These switchers have left the Tories "for good", furious at lack of delivery of promises in 14 years of govt
💥 Rishi Sunak has gone from a breath of fresh air a year ago to "typical politician who never answers a question", "out of touch", "spineless", and "false"
💥 Sunak's new year election visits have been noticed - and have gone down like a cup of cold sick ("oily", "staged", PM "full of himself")
💥 Tax cuts viewed as a "sweetener" just to get votes
💥 Keir Starmer seen as "weak", "spineless", "unchallenging", "boring" and - above all else - as having "no plan". They are voting Labour *despite* Keir Starmer rather than because of him. Lack of plan/square one attack by Sunak was the only clip that went down well
💥 The person who got the best reception - and is a threat to both parties - is Nigel Farage, seen as "relatable", "strong", shown to be "in touch" by time in the jungle. All bar one said they would vote for Nigel Farage if they had the chance
💥 Tory win would leave people "gutted", Labour win a mix of "worried" and "hopeful". Hard to argue that - as the polling of direct switchers shows - these voters are coming back to the Conservatives any time soon
💥 These switchers have left the Tories "for good", furious at lack of delivery of promises in 14 years of govt
💥 Rishi Sunak has gone from a breath of fresh air a year ago to "typical politician who never answers a question", "out of touch", "spineless", and "false"
💥 Sunak's new year election visits have been noticed - and have gone down like a cup of cold sick ("oily", "staged", PM "full of himself")
💥 Tax cuts viewed as a "sweetener" just to get votes
💥 Keir Starmer seen as "weak", "spineless", "unchallenging", "boring" and - above all else - as having "no plan". They are voting Labour *despite* Keir Starmer rather than because of him. Lack of plan/square one attack by Sunak was the only clip that went down well
💥 The person who got the best reception - and is a threat to both parties - is Nigel Farage, seen as "relatable", "strong", shown to be "in touch" by time in the jungle. All bar one said they would vote for Nigel Farage if they had the chance
💥 Tory win would leave people "gutted", Labour win a mix of "worried" and "hopeful". Hard to argue that - as the polling of direct switchers shows - these voters are coming back to the Conservatives any time soon
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
It isn't allowing them breathing space though because under the solution above Russia are still bogged down having to defend the current 'border'. Considering Western self interest more broadly, it is inevitably a balanced matter between supporting Ukraine and everything else Europe needs to do to defend itself against Russia given the uncertainties of the forthcoming US election. When you look at how unprepared Europe is for a war (as pre the articles about Sweden), throwing everything in to Ukraine looks like an elephant trap. Strategically the focus would be more effectively placed on securing its defensive abilities in relation to the existing situation. This position is never going to be acceptable to those in Ukraine who see the conflict as existential and all or nothing but it would achieve much in terms of reducing the legitimacy of Russian claims on Ukraine.
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
President Zelensky is in Tallinn this morning, having arrived late last night from Vilnius, before going to Riga later today.
The Baltics, Poland and Ukraine are lock step in their determination to resist Russian aggression, and at the same time increasingly preparing for weakness in NATO, whether because Trump betrays the alliance, or some other reason. The point is, that the Central European democracies will not permit themselves to become the playthings of dictators ever again. Sweden is warning of war, in the Baltic we are actively preparing for it. Russia is clearly not invincible, and careful preparation can, as in Iraq, overcome much larger numbers. The Nordic/Baltic bloc, Poland, Romania are all NATO states (Sweden joining within weeks), and Ukraine is rapidly integrating with the NATO command.
Russia is now and will continue to be a direct threat to European peace, however if Russia chooses to launch an attack, whether the USA can be relied on to defend its allies or not, then Putin may find the tempting morsels for his imperialist ambitions will be extremely difficult to swallow. I have often written here about the fear and determination that haunts Tallinn. Now we are standing to and facing the threat head on. After formal Swedish accession to NATO, expect to see further major announcements of increasing preparedness from all eight Nordic and Baltic countries together with Poland, Romania and Ukraine. Estonia has donated substantially all of its defence budget to Ukraine, and has also doubled military expenditure to over 4% of GDP.
Meanwhile the UK is continuing to run down its own defences. Yet another catastrophic decision from the played out Conservative government.
The wisdom of Estonia donating all of its defence budget to Ukraine is the kind of thing I would question. Surely it has to defend itself as well as support Ukraine. I don't know very much about Estonia. I appreciate what you are saying about readiness, but does Estonia have (in practice) a viable strategy of total defence in the same way as Finland does?
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
The concerning issue for Sweden and Finland is the amount of migrants and what level of commitment they would have towards "civil defence", also in light of the effectiveness of Russian propaganda operations, for instance in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was the problem the Roman Empire had by the end. Lots of people living in its borders with no allegiance to Rome or willingness to defend the institution.
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support... All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
In a word, no.
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
Quite: the idea that it is moral to remove support from someone who has been attacked is repugnant.
I am unconvinced. The 'appeal to morality' argument was much stronger in Afghanistan and we removed support there with terrible consequences, particularly for womens rights, that we don't spend any time discussing on here, despite the repeated interest in domestic issues relating to women's rights.
Few outside the west believes its claims to be on the side of good in pursuing its wars which is a reason behind the global ambivalence towards Russia. However in the case of Ukraine the strategy I have referred to is not actually withdrawing support, it could make it more sustainable and durable.
"...for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active,.." is a wish, not a strategy.
It's also the current reality. For the entirity of 2023 the net territorial gain for the entire conflict was about 450km2 to the Russians. That's nugatory considering the length of the front is 600km.
Since the failure of the Ukrainian cucksteroffensive nobody is doing anything or going anywhere beyond sporadic, attritional artillery and missile exchanges.
It is, in fact, de-escalated, unresolved and still active.
Those F-16s, though... 🎯
That's a load of balls. No territory is exchanging hands, but the casualty rates tell an entirely different story.
Russia is spending nearly a third of its GDP on the war. Some de-escalation.
In May 2009 #KeirStarmer prosecuted Wendy Cousins, sub-postmistress of the Post Office branch in Hertford Heath, Herts. She was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment but died in 2022 before the Court of Appeal could formally exonerate her. #StarmerResign
💥 These switchers have left the Tories "for good", furious at lack of delivery of promises in 14 years of govt
💥 Rishi Sunak has gone from a breath of fresh air a year ago to "typical politician who never answers a question", "out of touch", "spineless", and "false"
💥 Sunak's new year election visits have been noticed - and have gone down like a cup of cold sick ("oily", "staged", PM "full of himself")
💥 Tax cuts viewed as a "sweetener" just to get votes
💥 Keir Starmer seen as "weak", "spineless", "unchallenging", "boring" and - above all else - as having "no plan". They are voting Labour *despite* Keir Starmer rather than because of him. Lack of plan/square one attack by Sunak was the only clip that went down well
💥 The person who got the best reception - and is a threat to both parties - is Nigel Farage, seen as "relatable", "strong", shown to be "in touch" by time in the jungle. All bar one said they would vote for Nigel Farage if they had the chance
💥 Tory win would leave people "gutted", Labour win a mix of "worried" and "hopeful". Hard to argue that - as the polling of direct switchers shows - these voters are coming back to the Conservatives any time soon
💥 These switchers have left the Tories "for good", furious at lack of delivery of promises in 14 years of govt
💥 Rishi Sunak has gone from a breath of fresh air a year ago to "typical politician who never answers a question", "out of touch", "spineless", and "false"
💥 Sunak's new year election visits have been noticed - and have gone down like a cup of cold sick ("oily", "staged", PM "full of himself")
💥 Tax cuts viewed as a "sweetener" just to get votes
💥 Keir Starmer seen as "weak", "spineless", "unchallenging", "boring" and - above all else - as having "no plan". They are voting Labour *despite* Keir Starmer rather than because of him. Lack of plan/square one attack by Sunak was the only clip that went down well
💥 The person who got the best reception - and is a threat to both parties - is Nigel Farage, seen as "relatable", "strong", shown to be "in touch" by time in the jungle. All bar one said they would vote for Nigel Farage if they had the chance
💥 Tory win would leave people "gutted", Labour win a mix of "worried" and "hopeful". Hard to argue that - as the polling of direct switchers shows - these voters are coming back to the Conservatives any time soon
Those voters will get disappointed with Labour very quickly.
Agreed.
Since Starmer hasnt put any stakes in the ground he's trying to be all things to all men. That means he can only disappoint all since he hasnt set his stall out. Hes' heading down the same path as Sunak.
💥 These switchers have left the Tories "for good", furious at lack of delivery of promises in 14 years of govt
💥 Rishi Sunak has gone from a breath of fresh air a year ago to "typical politician who never answers a question", "out of touch", "spineless", and "false"
💥 Sunak's new year election visits have been noticed - and have gone down like a cup of cold sick ("oily", "staged", PM "full of himself")
💥 Tax cuts viewed as a "sweetener" just to get votes
💥 Keir Starmer seen as "weak", "spineless", "unchallenging", "boring" and - above all else - as having "no plan". They are voting Labour *despite* Keir Starmer rather than because of him. Lack of plan/square one attack by Sunak was the only clip that went down well
💥 The person who got the best reception - and is a threat to both parties - is Nigel Farage, seen as "relatable", "strong", shown to be "in touch" by time in the jungle. All bar one said they would vote for Nigel Farage if they had the chance
💥 Tory win would leave people "gutted", Labour win a mix of "worried" and "hopeful". Hard to argue that - as the polling of direct switchers shows - these voters are coming back to the Conservatives any time soon
Interesting stuff. 3 key points: 1. The Tories are fucked. Proper Fucked. Another relaunch of Sunak won't make any difference. Their catastrophic failure to deliver quality of life improvements (because things are worse) means these voters are *done* with the Tories. 2. Labour need to stop attacking the Tories and switch to Shadow Government mode. The election could be less than 5 months away. We'd do this. We'd do that. You need this. 3. The Operation Samson approach for the Tories is to weaponise the Nigel. Yes, he would take votes off them. But more critically he could take votes off Labour. We have seen this week how Farage saying Starmer should resign as Post Office Minister has played. Offer him a knighthood - a proper one not a crappy one like IDS got.
Comments
A little factoid that hasn’t been much noticed is that the head of Fujitsu UK during much of the relevant period is the husband of the Education Minister.
Just wondering. Which one of the dozens of Education Ministers during the relevant period that would be?
“I had 8,000 staff for five years as DPP.
I acted in the right way with them, which is when they had victories I celebrated victories on their behalf, I picked up awards on their behalves.
When they made mistakes, I carried the can."
https://x.com/archrose90/status/1745204605338665176?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Even worse. Being streets ahead in the polls as Tory bollocks collapses under the weight of its own bullshit.
Much of the supporting coalition has turned decidedly lukewarm in the face of, in particular, american paralysis. Yes, maintaining longer term support was always going to be difficult, but it seems fewer and fewer nations care with each passing day - like 2014 it is becoming the new normal, and they will decide to call it quits sooner or later.
The way you are framing it, the only way the CPS could really make a mistake is if people were found not guilty after they’d recommended prosecution
Goodnight 👍
Someone with genuine MH issues, esp if they’ve recovered, would be reluctant to use phrases like ‘weirdly obsessed’ about others. I take that to be a dig at my own MH
SSI - Translation: Donald Trump chickens out again yet again in yet another court case.
Don't know about y'all but on my humble YouTube feed, a LOT of vis about "Sovereign Citizens" (a thing in the USA today) and the like "disputing" in front of judges in courts from El Lay to Frostbite Falls. With SVs getting the short end of the stick, in courts of law AND public opinion.
Interesting (perhaps) does NOT appear to be ideological divide let alone polarization regarding these folks, who in 99.46% of instances come off as crazed, conniving, or both.
Two thoughts:
1. Doesn't this sound just like the behavior of Donald J. Trump?; and
2. When, if ever, will significant share of Trump's support - and also undecided & swing voters - draw the same conclusion, and scratch him from their dance card?
3. Extra bonus third though: Biden right now is a minus for too many of the voters he needs for reelection, which is limiting factor on #2 above; whereas improvement in Biden's job rating, etc. could increase contrast AND impact of #1.
"Sweden is warned to 'brace for war': Civil Defence minister tells citizens to 'get moving' and prepare for the end of 210 years of peace as country bids to join NATO in face of Russia tensions"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12946939/Sweden-warned-brace-war-Civil-Defence-minister-tells-citizens-moving-prepare-end-210-years-peace-country-bids-join-NATO-face-Russia-tensions.html
Have you no shame?!?
That was the fundamental lie.
All the other lies were in support of this.
That there was no crime is how, I think - but will need to do some more thinking on this overnight - the concerns about Parliament overriding the courts will have to be addressed.
I may write some more about this but only once - and if - I've clarified my thoughts.
You do have a point, however.
Though personally, for legal advice will stick with old, trusted family firm - Dewey, Cheatam & Howe.
Some people say this case had CPS involvement
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-solicitor-knew-of-it-flaw-before-criminal-trial-inquiry-hears/5118219.article
Then courts focus on remaining evidence, issues, cases. And the Post Office get cracking on making things better instead of worser, for techies and posties.
https://x.com/rene_springer/status/1745061387804512694
Hard question: How many people on Twix are real people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
https://archive.is/Vymj7
3 of them are @SeanT
You are the 4th
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67935464
"Oscar Jonsson, a specialist from the Swedish Defence University, said that while war was a possibility, it would require several factors to fall into place: Russia's war in Ukraine coming to an end, its military having the time to rebuild and rearm its fighting force and for Europe to lose US military support...
All of which were within the realms of possibility, he added."
There is a strong strategic argument for the war in Ukraine to get de-escalated but essentially unresolved and still active, so Russia are bogged down, whilst the rest of Europe can restructure its own defences, build border walls, set up armies, prepare for the likely arrival of Trump 2 and attendant uncertainty etc. NATO cannot attack Russia to try and suck out its energy but it can attack it by proxy in Ukraine where it doesn't recognise the 'border'.
I have had several discussions about this with people in Finland where the view set out above is not very welcome and regarded as weak. But I struggle to see the merit in going all out to reinstate the 2014 border. This seems to be based on some kind of punishment theory, that once 'beaten back' the Russians will not return. But I think this line of thinking runs in to the nuclear escalation problem which didn't exist in past conflicts with Russia (ie in the Winter War).
In the end, isn't it the case that a smaller Ukraine, deprived of the large bulk of its Russian speaking population (and thus the pretext for Russian claims) would be a more coherant and defensible entity?
Russia considers Ukraine to be Russian territory, any “solution” that fails to recognise the 1991 border gives the Russians breathing space to rearm and try again. So long as the Ukranians want to keep fighting - which they very much do - it’s in the rest of Europe’s self-interest to keep them fed with supplies of the best kit they can get their hands on.
“Post Office investigators were offered cash bonuses for every sub-postmaster convicted during the Horizon scandal, it has emerged.
“Alan Bates, the sub-postmaster who led the campaign for justice, joined a deluge of criticism over the practice on Wednesday, saying offering financial incentives for prosecutions was “appalling” as he highlighted the “horrendous” culture of the Post Office.
“Investigators with the Post Office described the incentive scheme as “part of the business”, with everyone in the security team “on a bonus”.
“Gary Thomas, who worked in the Post Office security team between 2000 and 2012, told the Post Office Horizon inquiry that the bonus targets affected how he went about his work. Mr Thomas branded all sub-postmasters “crooks” in emails concerning one victim who was posthumously cleared. The messages were handed to the inquiry, which resumes on Thursday.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/10/post-office-executives-paid-bonuses-postmasters-conviction/
Reinstating the 2014 border would be exceedingly hard for Putin to sell as a 'win' for Russia. It would also tell other dictators or ner-do-wells that their imperialistic dreams could go very wrong. What is more, it is morally correct. It is Ukrainian territory.
As for the 'nuclear escalation problem': I am now of the mind that it is bullshit, for several reasons. Firstly, Putin has not used them so far; even in March 2022 when humiliatingly forced to withdraw from vast swathes of Ukrainian territory. Neither in that autumn, when his forces again had to withdraw.
Secondly, nukes are of no advantage to him in this war. Tactical nukes are too small to be of much use, and the anger their use would cause could lose many of the few friends he has left in the international community. And strategic bombs are very blunt instruments; have the same problem wrt international support, but doubly so.
Thirdly, the use of nukes might cause NATO to get involved in a big way - and I believe Biden has warned Putin of that. A massive conventional response against the Russian forces in Ukraine. That also could lead to further escalaltion.
No, Putin will not use nukes in Ukraine. The upsides for him are few, and the downsides many.
In the case of Finland, I don't think the problem is insurmountable but it is going to require a lot of effort.
$2.50
I think the fallacy to avoid is that any meaningful 'peace deal' or 'agreement' can be made with Russia.
The reason this deal can't be made is because the egos of the current fascist clowns running the Russian government won't let them accept it.
The only permanent solution to the problem of Russia, is a very long Berlin Wall between Russia and Europe, on the 1991 border, and defended collectively by European nations backed by the threat of nuclear escalation.
Few outside the west believes its claims to be on the side of good in pursuing its wars which is a reason behind the global ambivalence towards Russia. However in the case of Ukraine the strategy I have referred to is not actually withdrawing support, it could make it more sustainable and durable.
https://www.traffic.gov.scot/gritter-tracker
There is zero reason why the Russian psyche has to be the way it is. It is that way because of a false mythos perpetuated by the Russian state, spread through the state-controlled media. If that leadership were to change, or its views change, then so would the 'Russian psyche', albeit slowly.
The risk to Europe massively goes up if Ukranian defeat and Russian re-equipment happens.
John Fetterman was blasted online for endorsing tougher immigration laws, but to Pennsylvania voters in this Quinnipiac poll? It's a net positive. Voters say net +26 they view him more favorably for it. Not just Republicans and indys, even among *Democrats* it improves his image.
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1745228184855924759
Also, note that some kind of bipartisan deal on the border is reasonably likely, as part of the ongoing negotiations over lifting the GOP funding blockage.
Ceding the occupied Black Sea coast to Russia doesn't make Ukraine more defensible; quite the opposite.
And it's clear from both the words and actions is Putin that for now he has no real interest in a deal.
Indeed while the GOP block any further aid to Ukraine, he probably thinks he can win. You can't negotiate with Putin from a position of weakness - and ceding territory doesn't satisfy him, as Crimea proved.
The Baltics, Poland and Ukraine are lock step in their determination to resist Russian aggression, and at the same time increasingly preparing for weakness in NATO, whether because Trump betrays the alliance, or some other reason. The point is, that the Central European democracies will not permit themselves to become the playthings of dictators ever again. Sweden is warning of war, in the Baltic we are actively preparing for it. Russia is clearly not invincible, and careful preparation can, as in Iraq, overcome much larger numbers. The Nordic/Baltic bloc, Poland, Romania are all NATO states (Sweden joining within weeks), and Ukraine is rapidly integrating with the NATO command.
Russia is now and will continue to be a direct threat to European peace, however if Russia chooses to launch an attack, whether the USA can be relied on to defend its allies or not, then Putin may find the tempting morsels for his imperialist ambitions will be extremely difficult to swallow. I have often written here about the fear and determination that haunts Tallinn. Now we are standing to and facing the threat head on. After formal Swedish accession to NATO, expect to see further major announcements of increasing preparedness from all eight Nordic and Baltic countries together with Poland, Romania and Ukraine. Estonia has donated substantially all of its defence budget to Ukraine, and has also doubled military expenditure to over 4% of GDP.
Meanwhile the UK is continuing to run down its own defences. Yet another catastrophic decision from the played out Conservative government.
Since the failure of the Ukrainian cucksteroffensive nobody is doing anything or going anywhere beyond sporadic, attritional artillery and missile exchanges.
It is, in fact, de-escalated, unresolved and still active.
Those F-16s, though... 🎯
Total hypocrisy. No 10 employed Vennells as cabinet office director and they still are handing out contracts to Fujitsu .
NEW 🇬🇧 Conservative-to-Labour switchers
@jlpartnerspolls
@timesradio
focus group. Key points:
💥 These switchers have left the Tories "for good", furious at lack of delivery of promises in 14 years of govt
💥 Rishi Sunak has gone from a breath of fresh air a year ago to "typical politician who never answers a question", "out of touch", "spineless", and "false"
💥 Sunak's new year election visits have been noticed - and have gone down like a cup of cold sick ("oily", "staged", PM "full of himself")
💥 Tax cuts viewed as a "sweetener" just to get votes
💥 Keir Starmer seen as "weak", "spineless", "unchallenging", "boring" and - above all else - as having "no plan". They are voting Labour *despite* Keir Starmer rather than because of him. Lack of plan/square one attack by Sunak was the only clip that went down well
💥 The person who got the best reception - and is a threat to both parties - is Nigel Farage, seen as "relatable", "strong", shown to be "in touch" by time in the jungle. All bar one said they would vote for Nigel Farage if they had the chance
💥 Tory win would leave people "gutted", Labour win a mix of "worried" and "hopeful". Hard to argue that - as the polling of direct switchers shows - these voters are coming back to the Conservatives any time soon
📻 Listen to the focus group at 11am GMT on http://times.radio with me and
@MattChorley
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/10/mps-finally-recognise-the-real-heroes-of-the-post-office-scandal-mps
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67943105
Farage has a real appeal for a lot of people (not me - I’m just the messenger)
No territory is exchanging hands, but the casualty rates tell an entirely different story.
Russia is spending nearly a third of its GDP on the war. Some de-escalation.
But let us all enjoy giving the current lot a good kicking at the polls first. Don't be a killjoy.
Since Starmer hasnt put any stakes in the ground he's trying to be all things to all men. That means he can only disappoint all since he hasnt set his stall out. Hes' heading down the same path as Sunak.
Russian military spending is ~6% of GDP.
1. The Tories are fucked. Proper Fucked. Another relaunch of Sunak won't make any difference. Their catastrophic failure to deliver quality of life improvements (because things are worse) means these voters are *done* with the Tories.
2. Labour need to stop attacking the Tories and switch to Shadow Government mode. The election could be less than 5 months away. We'd do this. We'd do that. You need this.
3. The Operation Samson approach for the Tories is to weaponise the Nigel. Yes, he would take votes off them. But more critically he could take votes off Labour. We have seen this week how Farage saying Starmer should resign as Post Office Minister has played. Offer him a knighthood - a proper one not a crappy one like IDS got.