I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
A damn sight cheaper than the Royals I'd wager. Especially after we have sold of all the crown estate to the Chinese...
No, with no royal wedding, jubilee or coronation revenue whether and the Crown estate certainly won't be sold off, it is our heritage.
I certainly don't want President Johnson or President Blair either
It might not be sold off, but the revenues wouldn't go to Chas or William.
The replacement doesn't need to be a President - that would require such a major constitutional overhaul that it'll never happen.
Simply pass an act of parliament that deems Boris or Blair or whoever to be the next "Heir of the Body of Princess Sophia, Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First". Make sure you first require them to submit a letter of abdication post-dated for ten years in the future.
Problem solved. And even if we ended up with King Boris, it'd be fine. He'd do the job for (much) less than the current one, he'd be happy to turn up and open all the new bus stations you could possibly wish for, and he'd be colourful enough to keep the tabloids happy.
You'd want to make sure that letter of abdication was pretty watertight, and that there were enough counselors of state who could sign bills into law on his behalf in case he gets into a strop and refuses to play nicely. But otherwise, job done.
Then you still end up with an ex politician President, which defeats the point of an apolitical head of state. Neither have royal blood that I can see either
After, what, 13? (14?) generations since Electress Sophia, I suspect that whatever royal magic might have been in her blood has been diluted beyond the threshold of detectability by now.
Her living descendents today likely number in the tens or possibly even hundreds of millions. All of them have roughly as much royal blood as Charles. Even if you did restrict the list of candidates to them, there'd still be plenty to choose from!
(And I note that Charles has never offered any actual evidence of his supposed magic inheritance - you'd think that someone who had built their entire life around heredity would have at least got himself a basic 23andme or AncestryDNA test kit!)
Yes but descendants with as much claim as Charles would still be aristocratic and royal by blood
We could always restore the Plantagenets by making Danny Dyer king.
Although isn't it thought that almost everyone is descended from a plantagenet? So anyone of us would do!
Its Mark Harper actually. Have I said enough to be sacked yet as a putinist infiltratot of the tory party,
This forum has a history of people signing up & spouting Putinist talking points until they get banned, so you’ll hopefully appreciate that any new account that does the same will attract a certain skepticism as to the origin & honesty of their opinions.
Stick around, we’re not all dyed in the wool NATO warmongers. Well, except for Dura Ace I guess, but they’re an ex-warmonger these days I believe..
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
A damn sight cheaper than the Royals I'd wager. Especially after we have sold of all the crown estate to the Chinese...
No, with no royal wedding, jubilee or coronation revenue whether and the Crown estate certainly won't be sold off, it is our heritage.
I certainly don't want President Johnson or President Blair either
It might not be sold off, but the revenues wouldn't go to Chas or William.
The replacement doesn't need to be a President - that would require such a major constitutional overhaul that it'll never happen.
Simply pass an act of parliament that deems Boris or Blair or whoever to be the next "Heir of the Body of Princess Sophia, Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First". Make sure you first require them to submit a letter of abdication post-dated for ten years in the future.
Problem solved. And even if we ended up with King Boris, it'd be fine. He'd do the job for (much) less than the current one, he'd be happy to turn up and open all the new bus stations you could possibly wish for, and he'd be colourful enough to keep the tabloids happy.
You'd want to make sure that letter of abdication was pretty watertight, and that there were enough counselors of state who could sign bills into law on his behalf in case he gets into a strop and refuses to play nicely. But otherwise, job done.
Then you still end up with an ex politician President, which defeats the point of an apolitical head of state. Neither have royal blood that I can see either
After, what, 13? (14?) generations since Electress Sophia, I suspect that whatever royal magic might have been in her blood has been diluted beyond the threshold of detectability by now.
Her living descendents today likely number in the tens or possibly even hundreds of millions. All of them have roughly as much royal blood as Charles. Even if you did restrict the list of candidates to them, there'd still be plenty to choose from!
(And I note that Charles has never offered any actual evidence of his supposed magic inheritance - you'd think that someone who had built their entire life around heredity would have at least got himself a basic 23andme or AncestryDNA test kit!)
The web claims to identify 4973 descendants of Sophia of Hanover.
Edit: another source claims closer to 6000, but those only being the legitimate, Protestant, descendants, who's are in the line of succession.
Can't possibly be that low - even with an average of only two offspring in every generation, there'd be over 8000. With three, there'd be over 1.5 million, and with four it'd be over 65 million.
Families were larger in the past than now, and you'd expect most of her descendents to be wealthier, with more surviving children than average. And, of course, there are multiple generations alive simultaneously.
It's far too close to the end of the work week to do the sums properly, but I reckon that 'tens of millions' is about right.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
It depends. If Ukraine receives a lot of support from the West over the course of a two-year ceasefire it could build itself a modern airforce and a well-trained army. And the next round of hostilities could look a lot like the Serb experience of being chucked out of Croatia.
It might be better for Ukraine to choose that approach over trying to do the same during active hostilities.
Whatever Ukraine chooses to do, it will have better options and a greater chance of success the more support we provide, so we absolutely should not be trying to pressure them into a permanent settlement with Russia by reducing that support.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
A damn sight cheaper than the Royals I'd wager. Especially after we have sold of all the crown estate to the Chinese...
No, with no royal wedding, jubilee or coronation revenue whether and the Crown estate certainly won't be sold off, it is our heritage.
I certainly don't want President Johnson or President Blair either
It might not be sold off, but the revenues wouldn't go to Chas or William.
The replacement doesn't need to be a President - that would require such a major constitutional overhaul that it'll never happen.
Simply pass an act of parliament that deems Boris or Blair or whoever to be the next "Heir of the Body of Princess Sophia, Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First". Make sure you first require them to submit a letter of abdication post-dated for ten years in the future.
Problem solved. And even if we ended up with King Boris, it'd be fine. He'd do the job for (much) less than the current one, he'd be happy to turn up and open all the new bus stations you could possibly wish for, and he'd be colourful enough to keep the tabloids happy.
You'd want to make sure that letter of abdication was pretty watertight, and that there were enough counselors of state who could sign bills into law on his behalf in case he gets into a strop and refuses to play nicely. But otherwise, job done.
Then you still end up with an ex politician President, which defeats the point of an apolitical head of state. Neither have royal blood that I can see either
After, what, 13? (14?) generations since Electress Sophia, I suspect that whatever royal magic might have been in her blood has been diluted beyond the threshold of detectability by now.
Her living descendents today likely number in the tens or possibly even hundreds of millions. All of them have roughly as much royal blood as Charles. Even if you did restrict the list of candidates to them, there'd still be plenty to choose from!
(And I note that Charles has never offered any actual evidence of his supposed magic inheritance - you'd think that someone who had built their entire life around heredity would have at least got himself a basic 23andme or AncestryDNA test kit!)
The web claims to identify 4973 descendants of Sophia of Hanover.
Edit: another source claims closer to 6000, but those only being the legitimate, Protestant, descendants, who's are in the line of succession.
Can't possibly be that low - even with an average of only two offspring in every generation, there'd be over 8000. With three, there'd be over 1.5 million, and with four it'd be over 65 million.
Families were larger in the past than now, and you'd expect most of her descendents to be wealthier, with more surviving children than average. And, of course, there are multiple generations alive simultaneously.
It's far too close to the end of the work week to do the sums properly, but I reckon that 'tens of millions' is about right.
Cousin marriage reduces the number of descendants considerably.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
It's probably because there's a lack of ideological issues on which to be partisan, hence the weird obsession with trans people and other wedge issues.
More or less everybody agrees that the country is buggered, more or less everybody agrees why on all the salient points - stagnant productivity, lack of investment, insane house prices, rentier economy, etc. There are few on here who think differently.
The trouble is, these are problems that need managerial solutions rather than ideological ones.
While it might be fun to debate the motion that This House Would Hang All Landlords and Confiscate the Bank Balances, Walking Canes, and Cats of All Pensioners, it's a lot simpler and duller to agree "well, everything would be better if we built more houses and stopped subsidising pensioners to the detriment of everyone else."
"Dull solutions for bloody obvious problems". That should be Labour's 2024 campaign slogan and, to all effects and purposes, is.
Except, we don't really want it to be true, do we?
I mean, I'm as suburban centrist dad science master as they come. I totally buy into the "it's going to be shit for a significant number of years while things are fixed" and accept it's going to happen and if it doesn't hurt me, the government isn't doing it right.
But I can't get enthusiastic about it.
It would be nice to just press a magic button and make everything nice again, whether that button is Brexit, Brejoin, Automated Luxury Socialism, Johnsonian Unleashing, Trussite Tax Cutting Liberalisation or Whatever The Hell Sunak is offering today. But while those buttons exist and have been pressed, they have tended to make things worse.
It's a bit like diet fads. Deep down, we know that the thing to do is get rid of the chocolate biscuits and to do some more exercise, but faced with that prospect, it's easier to look for the ONE WEIRD TRICK that will do the job for us.
I think your post is against the populist short-termism that has gripped the UK since some time in the 2010s.
But I don’t think it’s true that there’s no fresh agenda out there to get enthusiastic about.
Britain has some superb advantages - some relative, some absolute - but the national discourse is hopelessly unimaginative and profoundly depressed.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Hitler of course only ever wanted a chunk of Czechoslovakia.
Yeah - happened to me tons of times.
Went out shopping for a couple of drill bits. Came home with the whole store.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
But you're not particularly open-minded. Nor a particularly free-thinker. What you mainly do is haul the same old prejudices and obsessions from one far-flung location to another. One day we get a bunch of right wing tropes posted from Camden. Next day the same from Cambodia. And so on and so forth.
There's rarely anything surprising let alone original about the view expressed. You seem to confuse (in yourself) a lively intelligence and advanced English language skills for some sort of serious intellect (which you do not have). I'm afraid that is probably your defining characteristic as regards here - an inflated self-image. Eg this regular moanfest about how PB has gone to the dogs. It's just you bigging yourself up again, isn't it?
Anyway, whatever, I'm not sure I can be bothered to post this. It's spot on but what - really - is the point? Perhaps you can tell me.
(have you been to Gran Canaria btw?)
Really Kinabalu I always had some respect for Hampstead liberals until I started observing your posts. But you are a parody a south yorkshire boy trying to desperately fit in amongst people who despise you by becoming the wokiest fool in the village. Please be authentic and move back to south yorkshire you would fit in better there.
Hmm. That is a sentence reminiscent of another PBer.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
A damn sight cheaper than the Royals I'd wager. Especially after we have sold of all the crown estate to the Chinese...
No, with no royal wedding, jubilee or coronation revenue whether and the Crown estate certainly won't be sold off, it is our heritage.
I certainly don't want President Johnson or President Blair either
It might not be sold off, but the revenues wouldn't go to Chas or William.
The replacement doesn't need to be a President - that would require such a major constitutional overhaul that it'll never happen.
Simply pass an act of parliament that deems Boris or Blair or whoever to be the next "Heir of the Body of Princess Sophia, Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First". Make sure you first require them to submit a letter of abdication post-dated for ten years in the future.
Problem solved. And even if we ended up with King Boris, it'd be fine. He'd do the job for (much) less than the current one, he'd be happy to turn up and open all the new bus stations you could possibly wish for, and he'd be colourful enough to keep the tabloids happy.
You'd want to make sure that letter of abdication was pretty watertight, and that there were enough counselors of state who could sign bills into law on his behalf in case he gets into a strop and refuses to play nicely. But otherwise, job done.
Then you still end up with an ex politician President, which defeats the point of an apolitical head of state. Neither have royal blood that I can see either
After, what, 13? (14?) generations since Electress Sophia, I suspect that whatever royal magic might have been in her blood has been diluted beyond the threshold of detectability by now.
Her living descendents today likely number in the tens or possibly even hundreds of millions. All of them have roughly as much royal blood as Charles. Even if you did restrict the list of candidates to them, there'd still be plenty to choose from!
(And I note that Charles has never offered any actual evidence of his supposed magic inheritance - you'd think that someone who had built their entire life around heredity would have at least got himself a basic 23andme or AncestryDNA test kit!)
The web claims to identify 4973 descendants of Sophia of Hanover.
Edit: another source claims closer to 6000, but those only being the legitimate, Protestant, descendants, who's are in the line of succession.
Can't possibly be that low - even with an average of only two offspring in every generation, there'd be over 8000. With three, there'd be over 1.5 million, and with four it'd be over 65 million.
Families were larger in the past than now, and you'd expect most of her descendents to be wealthier, with more surviving children than average. And, of course, there are multiple generations alive simultaneously.
It's far too close to the end of the work week to do the sums properly, but I reckon that 'tens of millions' is about right.
Cousin marriage reduces the number of descendants considerably.
Oh god, I hadn't even considered incest. You're right of course, there'll be a lot of that. And lots of non-paternity events too. Even more reason for Chas to get onto 23andme asap!
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
It depends. If Ukraine receives a lot of support from the West over the course of a two-year ceasefire it could build itself a modern airforce and a well-trained army. And the next round of hostilities could look a lot like the Serb experience of being chucked out of Croatia.
It might be better for Ukraine to choose that approach over trying to do the same during active hostilities.
Whatever Ukraine chooses to do, it will have better options and a greater chance of success the more support we provide, so we absolutely should not be trying to pressure them into a permanent settlement with Russia by reducing that support.
Totally agree with your last paragraph.
As for the alternative approach: a problem is the idea that Ukraine would continue receiving enough western aid after a ceasefire. The moment a ceasefire happens, Russia and its agents will be putting pressure on governments to say: "There's peace; giving Ukraine weapon system x might provoke Russia." Which is what we saw before February 2022. Or: "These weapons systems are expensive. Why should we give them a country at peace?"
IMV Putin still thinks he can get a 'win' out of this war politically, by manipulating foreign governments into not supporting Ukraine.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
A damn sight cheaper than the Royals I'd wager. Especially after we have sold of all the crown estate to the Chinese...
No, with no royal wedding, jubilee or coronation revenue whether and the Crown estate certainly won't be sold off, it is our heritage.
I certainly don't want President Johnson or President Blair either
It might not be sold off, but the revenues wouldn't go to Chas or William.
The replacement doesn't need to be a President - that would require such a major constitutional overhaul that it'll never happen.
Simply pass an act of parliament that deems Boris or Blair or whoever to be the next "Heir of the Body of Princess Sophia, Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First". Make sure you first require them to submit a letter of abdication post-dated for ten years in the future.
Problem solved. And even if we ended up with King Boris, it'd be fine. He'd do the job for (much) less than the current one, he'd be happy to turn up and open all the new bus stations you could possibly wish for, and he'd be colourful enough to keep the tabloids happy.
You'd want to make sure that letter of abdication was pretty watertight, and that there were enough counselors of state who could sign bills into law on his behalf in case he gets into a strop and refuses to play nicely. But otherwise, job done.
Then you still end up with an ex politician President, which defeats the point of an apolitical head of state. Neither have royal blood that I can see either
After, what, 13? (14?) generations since Electress Sophia, I suspect that whatever royal magic might have been in her blood has been diluted beyond the threshold of detectability by now.
Her living descendents today likely number in the tens or possibly even hundreds of millions. All of them have roughly as much royal blood as Charles. Even if you did restrict the list of candidates to them, there'd still be plenty to choose from!
(And I note that Charles has never offered any actual evidence of his supposed magic inheritance - you'd think that someone who had built their entire life around heredity would have at least got himself a basic 23andme or AncestryDNA test kit!)
The web claims to identify 4973 descendants of Sophia of Hanover.
Edit: another source claims closer to 6000, but those only being the legitimate, Protestant, descendants, who's are in the line of succession.
Can't possibly be that low - even with an average of only two offspring in every generation, there'd be over 8000. With three, there'd be over 1.5 million, and with four it'd be over 65 million.
Families were larger in the past than now, and you'd expect most of her descendents to be wealthier, with more surviving children than average. And, of course, there are multiple generations alive simultaneously.
It's far too close to the end of the work week to do the sums properly, but I reckon that 'tens of millions' is about right.
Cousin marriage reduces the number of descendants considerably.
For example, QEII and Prince Philip, DoE, were both great-great-grandchildren of Queen Victoria. So all of their descendants would be counted twice in your simple maths.
That reduces the number of descendants by 25 by that marriage alone.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
So if William wants the lifestyle he has then he has to buck up and if he doesn’t want to do the duties as he wants to be normal then he needs to get a career in something appropriate to his abilities and see how much time he gets off to be a family man as I’m sure most fathers in the UK don’t get that much and don’t get what he considers a family life.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
I think William needs to be a little careful with this “normal life priorities” thing. I get he wants to have as normal a family life as possible and wants to be with his wife whilst she convalesces however he needs to not miss the glaring great issue, which Harry doesn’t get, in that the only reason they can live the lifestyle they do, with the access to properties, staff, money, top notch medical, security is because they are Royals.
Neither of them have made their money off their own efforts, or the contacts or access to people and networks, and so they have/had a responsibility to the tax payer to put their duties first. If you don’t want the duty then you don’t get the massive perks.
So if William wants the lifestyle he has then he has to buck up and if he doesn’t want to do the duties as he wants to be normal then he needs to get a career in something appropriate to his abilities and see how much time he gets off to be a family man as I’m sure most fathers in the UK don’t get that much and don’t get what he considers a family life.
I think you're right. Most employers would at best allow up to a couple of weeks of compassionate leave and then expect you to be back at work. An exceptional employer might go beyond that and allow some flexible working hours, or a temporary cut in hours with associated cut in pay for a period of time.
Alternatively, if he was self employed, he would find he simply didn't have any income coming in for the period of time he spends looking after his spouse/family.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Just War Tradition maintains that it is morally permissible for a state to wage war only if certain conditions are met. These conditions are divided into two sets, six concerning when it is permissible to go to war, referred to as Jus ad Bellum, and two concerning how war may be legitimately conducted, referred to as Jus in Bello. Most notable in the Jus ad Bellum (JaB) conditions is that a state must have just cause to enter into war, while the Jus in Bello (JiB) conditions state firstly, that military action must be proportional, i.e. not use more force and cause more casualties than is necessary to attaining its objectives and, secondly, that military action must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, observing the principle of non-combatant immunity.
Building on the Just War Tradition, just war theorists including Walzer add a third element, the moral equality of combatants (MEC). The concept of MEC maintains that combatants on both sides of a war are equally permitted to kill and equally liable to be killed. This equality is irrespective of whether their side entered into the conflict in accordance with the JaB conditions. The distinction between the applicability of the JaB and JiB conditions is central to this position; it may be regarded that the JaB conditions only apply to politicians who make the decision to go to war, while it is only the JiB conditions that apply to combatants doing the fighting. By this argument, combatants on both sides in a war may be regarded as equivalent and fighting justly, provided they adhere to the JiB conditions.
Make of that what you will.
Nice one!
So, WW2 say, MEC says that the actions in the field of the individual British soldier and the individual German soldier should be judged according to the same standard. If the German was 'wrong' to carry out an act, then so was the Brit carrying out the same act. Ditto for if they were 'right'.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
A damn sight cheaper than the Royals I'd wager. Especially after we have sold of all the crown estate to the Chinese...
No, with no royal wedding, jubilee or coronation revenue whether and the Crown estate certainly won't be sold off, it is our heritage.
I certainly don't want President Johnson or President Blair either
You've just told us very firmly that the CE isn't our heritage but belongs to the RF in the sense that the money coming out of it is somehow not public money.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
But you're not particularly open-minded. Nor a particularly free-thinker. What you mainly do is haul the same old prejudices and obsessions from one far-flung location to another. One day we get a bunch of right wing tropes posted from Camden. Next day the same from Cambodia. And so on and so forth.
There's rarely anything surprising let alone original about the view expressed. You seem to confuse (in yourself) a lively intelligence and advanced English language skills for some sort of serious intellect (which you do not have). I'm afraid that is probably your defining characteristic as regards here - an inflated self-image. Eg this regular moanfest about how PB has gone to the dogs. It's just you bigging yourself up again, isn't it?
Anyway, whatever, I'm not sure I can be bothered to post this. It's spot on but what - really - is the point? Perhaps you can tell me.
(have you been to Gran Canaria btw?)
Really Kinabalu I always had some respect for Hampstead liberals until I started observing your posts. But you are a parody a south yorkshire boy trying to desperately fit in amongst people who despise you by becoming the wokiest fool in the village. Please be authentic and move back to south yorkshire you would fit in better there.
I've destroyed the respect you used to have for Hampstead liberals?
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
The Crown is not part of the government either, although the government is appointed by the Crown.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
A damn sight cheaper than the Royals I'd wager. Especially after we have sold of all the crown estate to the Chinese...
No, with no royal wedding, jubilee or coronation revenue whether and the Crown estate certainly won't be sold off, it is our heritage.
I certainly don't want President Johnson or President Blair either
It might not be sold off, but the revenues wouldn't go to Chas or William.
The replacement doesn't need to be a President - that would require such a major constitutional overhaul that it'll never happen.
Simply pass an act of parliament that deems Boris or Blair or whoever to be the next "Heir of the Body of Princess Sophia, Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First". Make sure you first require them to submit a letter of abdication post-dated for ten years in the future.
Problem solved. And even if we ended up with King Boris, it'd be fine. He'd do the job for (much) less than the current one, he'd be happy to turn up and open all the new bus stations you could possibly wish for, and he'd be colourful enough to keep the tabloids happy.
You'd want to make sure that letter of abdication was pretty watertight, and that there were enough counselors of state who could sign bills into law on his behalf in case he gets into a strop and refuses to play nicely. But otherwise, job done.
Then you still end up with an ex politician President, which defeats the point of an apolitical head of state. Neither have royal blood that I can see either
After, what, 13? (14?) generations since Electress Sophia, I suspect that whatever royal magic might have been in her blood has been diluted beyond the threshold of detectability by now.
Her living descendents today likely number in the tens or possibly even hundreds of millions. All of them have roughly as much royal blood as Charles. Even if you did restrict the list of candidates to them, there'd still be plenty to choose from!
(And I note that Charles has never offered any actual evidence of his supposed magic inheritance - you'd think that someone who had built their entire life around heredity would have at least got himself a basic 23andme or AncestryDNA test kit!)
Yes but descendants with as much claim as Charles would still be aristocratic and royal by blood
We could always restore the Plantagenets by making Danny Dyer king.
Although isn't it thought that almost everyone is descended from a plantagenet? So anyone of us would do!
Indeed. Though not all of us look as good when 'bowlin' abart in a ruff'.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
It's probably because there's a lack of ideological issues on which to be partisan, hence the weird obsession with trans people and other wedge issues.
More or less everybody agrees that the country is buggered, more or less everybody agrees why on all the salient points - stagnant productivity, lack of investment, insane house prices, rentier economy, etc. There are few on here who think differently.
The trouble is, these are problems that need managerial solutions rather than ideological ones.
While it might be fun to debate the motion that This House Would Hang All Landlords and Confiscate the Bank Balances, Walking Canes, and Cats of All Pensioners, it's a lot simpler and duller to agree "well, everything would be better if we built more houses and stopped subsidising pensioners to the detriment of everyone else."
"Dull solutions for bloody obvious problems". That should be Labour's 2024 campaign slogan and, to all effects and purposes, is.
Except, we don't really want it to be true, do we?
I mean, I'm as suburban centrist dad science master as they come. I totally buy into the "it's going to be shit for a significant number of years while things are fixed" and accept it's going to happen and if it doesn't hurt me, the government isn't doing it right.
But I can't get enthusiastic about it.
It would be nice to just press a magic button and make everything nice again, whether that button is Brexit, Brejoin, Automated Luxury Socialism, Johnsonian Unleashing, Trussite Tax Cutting Liberalisation or Whatever The Hell Sunak is offering today. But while those buttons exist and have been pressed, they have tended to make things worse.
It's a bit like diet fads. Deep down, we know that the thing to do is get rid of the chocolate biscuits and to do some more exercise, but faced with that prospect, it's easier to look for the ONE WEIRD TRICK that will do the job for us.
I think your post is against the populist short-termism that has gripped the UK since some time in the 2010s.
But I don’t think it’s true that there’s no fresh agenda out there to get enthusiastic about.
Britain has some superb advantages - some relative, some absolute - but the national discourse is hopelessly unimaginative and profoundly depressed.
Yes, our advantages are: huge cultural soft power, hard geopolitical power, better demographics than most of our peers, a head start in the renewable transition, an open economy unencumbered by protectionism, a generally open minded and non-extremist population, the English language, English common law, a world leading research and higher education sector, historical political-economic ties with both the European continent and the Anglosphere, and many more.
We have disadvantages too, like the shit weather and naval-gazing self obsession.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
Bloody hell, are you still here?
You can and do post some fascinating and informative stuff, but right now the only thing that’s boring about pb is your moaning.
I get that we’re all humans behind these avatars, and you have reasons for using this as your outlet right now but please, give it a rest.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
The Crown Estate revenues are used by agreement by the state. The state certainly does NOT own it in a legal way though.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
It depends. If Ukraine receives a lot of support from the West over the course of a two-year ceasefire it could build itself a modern airforce and a well-trained army. And the next round of hostilities could look a lot like the Serb experience of being chucked out of Croatia.
It might be better for Ukraine to choose that approach over trying to do the same during active hostilities.
Whatever Ukraine chooses to do, it will have better options and a greater chance of success the more support we provide, so we absolutely should not be trying to pressure them into a permanent settlement with Russia by reducing that support.
Totally agree with your last paragraph.
As for the alternative approach: a problem is the idea that Ukraine would continue receiving enough western aid after a ceasefire. The moment a ceasefire happens, Russia and its agents will be putting pressure on governments to say: "There's peace; giving Ukraine weapon system x might provoke Russia." Which is what we saw before February 2022. Or: "These weapons systems are expensive. Why should we give them a country at peace?"
IMV Putin still thinks he can get a 'win' out of this war politically, by manipulating foreign governments into not supporting Ukraine.
That's a risk that Ukraine has to weigh up. Which is one reason the security guarantees they have been negotiating with various countries have value. They set out how each country intend to continue supporting Ukraine in the future to improve its security.
I had a look at the UK agreement and it commits the UK to continuing quite a high level of support for the next ten years.
Ukraine have also been working directly with Western arms companies too.
I don't say it's the best approach. I don't know. But a ceasefire isn't necessarily the Russian win that it would have looked like 18 months ago.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
But you're not particularly open-minded. Nor a particularly free-thinker. What you mainly do is haul the same old prejudices and obsessions from one far-flung location to another. One day we get a bunch of right wing tropes posted from Camden. Next day the same from Cambodia. And so on and so forth.
There's rarely anything surprising let alone original about the view expressed. You seem to confuse (in yourself) a lively intelligence and advanced English language skills for some sort of serious intellect (which you do not have). I'm afraid that is probably your defining characteristic as regards here - an inflated self-image. Eg this regular moanfest about how PB has gone to the dogs. It's just you bigging yourself up again, isn't it?
Anyway, whatever, I'm not sure I can be bothered to post this. It's spot on but what - really - is the point? Perhaps you can tell me.
(have you been to Gran Canaria btw?)
Really Kinabalu I always had some respect for Hampstead liberals until I started observing your posts. But you are a parody a south yorkshire boy trying to desperately fit in amongst people who despise you by becoming the wokiest fool in the village. Please be authentic and move back to south yorkshire you would fit in better there.
Hmm. That is a sentence reminiscent of another PBer.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
So if William wants the lifestyle he has then he has to buck up and if he doesn’t want to do the duties as he wants to be normal then he needs to get a career in something appropriate to his abilities and see how much time he gets off to be a family man as I’m sure most fathers in the UK don’t get that much and don’t get what he considers a family life.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
I think William needs to be a little careful with this “normal life priorities” thing. I get he wants to have as normal a family life as possible and wants to be with his wife whilst she convalesces however he needs to not miss the glaring great issue, which Harry doesn’t get, in that the only reason they can live the lifestyle they do, with the access to properties, staff, money, top notch medical, security is because they are Royals.
Neither of them have made their money off their own efforts, or the contacts or access to people and networks, and so they have/had a responsibility to the tax payer to put their duties first. If you don’t want the duty then you don’t get the massive perks.
So if William wants the lifestyle he has then he has to buck up and if he doesn’t want to do the duties as he wants to be normal then he needs to get a career in something appropriate to his abilities and see how much time he gets off to be a family man as I’m sure most fathers in the UK don’t get that much and don’t get what he considers a family life.
I think you're right. Most employers would at best allow up to a couple of weeks of compassionate leave and then expect you to be back at work. An exceptional employer might go beyond that and allow some flexible working hours, or a temporary cut in hours with associated cut in pay for a period of time.
Alternatively, if he was self employed, he would find he simply didn't have any income coming in for the period of time he spends looking after his spouse/family.
That's how it works for the rest of us.
I took the train to Norwich a few weeks back, listening to a group of Geordies from Newcastle two rows away. One man who's wife had died a month or so ago was talking about a call from his manager. The precis being:
> he was invited to take as much time as he wanted off but of course as he is self employed it would not be paid.
I believe his reality is much closer to the average than the comfortably salaried and infinitely far from William's.
Just War Tradition maintains that it is morally permissible for a state to wage war only if certain conditions are met. These conditions are divided into two sets, six concerning when it is permissible to go to war, referred to as Jus ad Bellum, and two concerning how war may be legitimately conducted, referred to as Jus in Bello. Most notable in the Jus ad Bellum (JaB) conditions is that a state must have just cause to enter into war, while the Jus in Bello (JiB) conditions state firstly, that military action must be proportional, i.e. not use more force and cause more casualties than is necessary to attaining its objectives and, secondly, that military action must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, observing the principle of non-combatant immunity.
Building on the Just War Tradition, just war theorists including Walzer add a third element, the moral equality of combatants (MEC). The concept of MEC maintains that combatants on both sides of a war are equally permitted to kill and equally liable to be killed. This equality is irrespective of whether their side entered into the conflict in accordance with the JaB conditions. The distinction between the applicability of the JaB and JiB conditions is central to this position; it may be regarded that the JaB conditions only apply to politicians who make the decision to go to war, while it is only the JiB conditions that apply to combatants doing the fighting. By this argument, combatants on both sides in a war may be regarded as equivalent and fighting justly, provided they adhere to the JiB conditions.
Make of that what you will.
Nice one!
So, WW2 say, MEC says that the actions in the field of the individual British soldier and the individual German soldier should be judged according to the same standard. If the German was 'wrong' to carry out an act, then so was the Brit carrying out the same act. Ditto for if they were 'right'.
Is that the idea?
Yes.
Likewise to Ukrainian and Russian troops today.
That was an extract from one of my PPE essays, btw.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
But you're not particularly open-minded. Nor a particularly free-thinker. What you mainly do is haul the same old prejudices and obsessions from one far-flung location to another. One day we get a bunch of right wing tropes posted from Camden. Next day the same from Cambodia. And so on and so forth.
There's rarely anything surprising let alone original about the view expressed. You seem to confuse (in yourself) a lively intelligence and advanced English language skills for some sort of serious intellect (which you do not have). I'm afraid that is probably your defining characteristic as regards here - an inflated self-image. Eg this regular moanfest about how PB has gone to the dogs. It's just you bigging yourself up again, isn't it?
Anyway, whatever, I'm not sure I can be bothered to post this. It's spot on but what - really - is the point? Perhaps you can tell me.
(have you been to Gran Canaria btw?)
Really Kinabalu I always had some respect for Hampstead liberals until I started observing your posts. But you are a parody a south yorkshire boy trying to desperately fit in amongst people who despise you by becoming the wokiest fool in the village. Please be authentic and move back to south yorkshire you would fit in better there.
I've destroyed the respect you used to have for Hampstead liberals?
That is one heavy burden for a man to bear.
Genuine lol. But seriously man, know your place! Get back down t'pit and stop trying to walk on your hind legs amid the Polly Toynbees of this world, you're fooling no-one with these pathetic attempts to join the tofu eating wokerati.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
But you're not particularly open-minded. Nor a particularly free-thinker. What you mainly do is haul the same old prejudices and obsessions from one far-flung location to another. One day we get a bunch of right wing tropes posted from Camden. Next day the same from Cambodia. And so on and so forth.
There's rarely anything surprising let alone original about the view expressed. You seem to confuse (in yourself) a lively intelligence and advanced English language skills for some sort of serious intellect (which you do not have). I'm afraid that is probably your defining characteristic as regards here - an inflated self-image. Eg this regular moanfest about how PB has gone to the dogs. It's just you bigging yourself up again, isn't it?
Anyway, whatever, I'm not sure I can be bothered to post this. It's spot on but what - really - is the point? Perhaps you can tell me.
(have you been to Gran Canaria btw?)
Nice geology and plants in the Canaries, too. Can't imagine why anyone should diss them as a holiday destination.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Yes, this cost-benefit calculation is what I also mentioned a lot, when the war first broke out. The West should remember this.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
It's probably because there's a lack of ideological issues on which to be partisan, hence the weird obsession with trans people and other wedge issues.
More or less everybody agrees that the country is buggered, more or less everybody agrees why on all the salient points - stagnant productivity, lack of investment, insane house prices, rentier economy, etc. There are few on here who think differently.
The trouble is, these are problems that need managerial solutions rather than ideological ones.
While it might be fun to debate the motion that This House Would Hang All Landlords and Confiscate the Bank Balances, Walking Canes, and Cats of All Pensioners, it's a lot simpler and duller to agree "well, everything would be better if we built more houses and stopped subsidising pensioners to the detriment of everyone else."
"Dull solutions for bloody obvious problems". That should be Labour's 2024 campaign slogan and, to all effects and purposes, is.
Except, we don't really want it to be true, do we?
I mean, I'm as suburban centrist dad science master as they come. I totally buy into the "it's going to be shit for a significant number of years while things are fixed" and accept it's going to happen and if it doesn't hurt me, the government isn't doing it right.
But I can't get enthusiastic about it.
It would be nice to just press a magic button and make everything nice again, whether that button is Brexit, Brejoin, Automated Luxury Socialism, Johnsonian Unleashing, Trussite Tax Cutting Liberalisation or Whatever The Hell Sunak is offering today. But while those buttons exist and have been pressed, they have tended to make things worse.
It's a bit like diet fads. Deep down, we know that the thing to do is get rid of the chocolate biscuits and to do some more exercise, but faced with that prospect, it's easier to look for the ONE WEIRD TRICK that will do the job for us.
I think your post is against the populist short-termism that has gripped the UK since some time in the 2010s.
But I don’t think it’s true that there’s no fresh agenda out there to get enthusiastic about.
Britain has some superb advantages - some relative, some absolute - but the national discourse is hopelessly unimaginative and profoundly depressed.
You're probably onto something with the depression thing. When depressed, it's hard to think things will get better, so one never does anything that might make them better and so the doom loop continues.
If that is what's going on, the art is to find the one small thing that makes a small but visible improvement. And then repeat, until you have capacity for two small things... You get the idea.
The hope for Britain has to be that not being actively self-harming yields enough progress to create some room to manoevre in the next year or three. Doesn't seem impossible.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
But you're not particularly open-minded. Nor a particularly free-thinker. What you mainly do is haul the same old prejudices and obsessions from one far-flung location to another. One day we get a bunch of right wing tropes posted from Camden. Next day the same from Cambodia. And so on and so forth.
There's rarely anything surprising let alone original about the view expressed. You seem to confuse (in yourself) a lively intelligence and advanced English language skills for some sort of serious intellect (which you do not have). I'm afraid that is probably your defining characteristic as regards here - an inflated self-image. Eg this regular moanfest about how PB has gone to the dogs. It's just you bigging yourself up again, isn't it?
Anyway, whatever, I'm not sure I can be bothered to post this. It's spot on but what - really - is the point? Perhaps you can tell me.
(have you been to Gran Canaria btw?)
Really Kinabalu I always had some respect for Hampstead liberals until I started observing your posts. But you are a parody a south yorkshire boy trying to desperately fit in amongst people who despise you by becoming the wokiest fool in the village. Please be authentic and move back to south yorkshire you would fit in better there.
I've destroyed the respect you used to have for Hampstead liberals?
That is one heavy burden for a man to bear.
Genuine lol. But seriously man, know your place! Get back down t'pit and stop trying to walk on your hind legs amid the Polly Toynbees of this world, you're fooling no-one with these pathetic attempts to join the tofu eating wokerati.
The tofu eating wokerati is one of the better phrases of the recent culture wars. Was it Suella that first coined the term? It trips off the tongue better than most of the other similar formulations like Jonathan Gullis's avocado eaters and chai latte drinkers.
It's the nice bouncy meter, with syncopation on wokerati. The To-fu eat-ing woke-er-aa-ti
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
The point is Trump is a serious threat to the future of Nato itself. His indifference is obvious. Listen to his former adviser John Bolton.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
I always found that those most inclined to bullying usually had older brothers to shield them from physical consequences.
Just War Tradition maintains that it is morally permissible for a state to wage war only if certain conditions are met. These conditions are divided into two sets, six concerning when it is permissible to go to war, referred to as Jus ad Bellum, and two concerning how war may be legitimately conducted, referred to as Jus in Bello. Most notable in the Jus ad Bellum (JaB) conditions is that a state must have just cause to enter into war, while the Jus in Bello (JiB) conditions state firstly, that military action must be proportional, i.e. not use more force and cause more casualties than is necessary to attaining its objectives and, secondly, that military action must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, observing the principle of non-combatant immunity.
Building on the Just War Tradition, just war theorists including Walzer add a third element, the moral equality of combatants (MEC). The concept of MEC maintains that combatants on both sides of a war are equally permitted to kill and equally liable to be killed. This equality is irrespective of whether their side entered into the conflict in accordance with the JaB conditions. The distinction between the applicability of the JaB and JiB conditions is central to this position; it may be regarded that the JaB conditions only apply to politicians who make the decision to go to war, while it is only the JiB conditions that apply to combatants doing the fighting. By this argument, combatants on both sides in a war may be regarded as equivalent and fighting justly, provided they adhere to the JiB conditions.
Make of that what you will.
Nice one!
So, WW2 say, MEC says that the actions in the field of the individual British soldier and the individual German soldier should be judged according to the same standard. If the German was 'wrong' to carry out an act, then so was the Brit carrying out the same act. Ditto for if they were 'right'.
Is that the idea?
Yes.
Likewise to Ukrainian and Russian troops today.
That was an extract from one of my PPE essays, btw.
I think I agree then. Even though it's an application of the much derided "I was only following orders" defence.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
But you're not particularly open-minded. Nor a particularly free-thinker. What you mainly do is haul the same old prejudices and obsessions from one far-flung location to another. One day we get a bunch of right wing tropes posted from Camden. Next day the same from Cambodia. And so on and so forth.
There's rarely anything surprising let alone original about the view expressed. You seem to confuse (in yourself) a lively intelligence and advanced English language skills for some sort of serious intellect (which you do not have). I'm afraid that is probably your defining characteristic as regards here - an inflated self-image. Eg this regular moanfest about how PB has gone to the dogs. It's just you bigging yourself up again, isn't it?
Anyway, whatever, I'm not sure I can be bothered to post this. It's spot on but what - really - is the point? Perhaps you can tell me.
(have you been to Gran Canaria btw?)
Nice geology and plants in the Canaries, too. Can't imagine why anyone should diss them as a holiday destination.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
The Crown is not part of the government either, although the government is appointed by the Crown.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
No, they would not. You don't understand the law or our constitution at all.
The crown is an integral part of the British state.
If the state ceases to be a monarchy then all the roles, responsibilities, obligations, rights etc of the crown get transfered from the crown to whatever replaces it.
The private property of the Windsors is their private property, but the states rights and responsibilities are not.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
But you're not particularly open-minded. Nor a particularly free-thinker. What you mainly do is haul the same old prejudices and obsessions from one far-flung location to another. One day we get a bunch of right wing tropes posted from Camden. Next day the same from Cambodia. And so on and so forth.
There's rarely anything surprising let alone original about the view expressed. You seem to confuse (in yourself) a lively intelligence and advanced English language skills for some sort of serious intellect (which you do not have). I'm afraid that is probably your defining characteristic as regards here - an inflated self-image. Eg this regular moanfest about how PB has gone to the dogs. It's just you bigging yourself up again, isn't it?
Anyway, whatever, I'm not sure I can be bothered to post this. It's spot on but what - really - is the point? Perhaps you can tell me.
(have you been to Gran Canaria btw?)
Nice geology and plants in the Canaries, too. Can't imagine why anyone should diss them as a holiday destination.
Thoughts on the Partisan Attack on Biden's Memory The Special Counsel report is going to make Biden's age and competence centerstage for the foreseeable future https://www.messageboxnews.com/p/thoughts-on-the-partisan-attack-on ...I want to stipulate that the report is very bad and poses some real political peril for Biden. I don’t want to sugarcoat it. Biden’s age is his biggest impediment to reelection and this description could be very damaging. However, I have a few thoughts to help you navigate conversations about this annoying topic.
1. This is a Partisan Hit Job
Robert Hur is described in press reports as a “well-respected U.S. attorney,” and maybe he once was, but this report is a partisan hit job. He swerves out of his lane to drive a negative narrative about Biden, the same message the Republican Party uses against Biden. In the report, Hur generously describes memory lapses from others but hammers Biden for the same.
It’s hard to read the report and not think that, without the ability to charge Biden with a crime, Hur wanted to damage him politically...
This is the level of delusion that saw Trump beat “the most qualified candidate ever”. God help us.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Bollocks. We are punching him back, indirectly, by arming Ukraine.
The GOP led by Trump standing in the way of that is cowardly.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
But you're not particularly open-minded. Nor a particularly free-thinker. What you mainly do is haul the same old prejudices and obsessions from one far-flung location to another. One day we get a bunch of right wing tropes posted from Camden. Next day the same from Cambodia. And so on and so forth.
There's rarely anything surprising let alone original about the view expressed. You seem to confuse (in yourself) a lively intelligence and advanced English language skills for some sort of serious intellect (which you do not have). I'm afraid that is probably your defining characteristic as regards here - an inflated self-image. Eg this regular moanfest about how PB has gone to the dogs. It's just you bigging yourself up again, isn't it?
Anyway, whatever, I'm not sure I can be bothered to post this. It's spot on but what - really - is the point? Perhaps you can tell me.
(have you been to Gran Canaria btw?)
Nice geology and plants in the Canaries, too. Can't imagine why anyone should diss them as a holiday destination.
You've been, have you?
No, but a colleague went and recommended it. Mind, he did have special interests!
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
A damn sight cheaper than the Royals I'd wager. Especially after we have sold of all the crown estate to the Chinese...
No, with no royal wedding, jubilee or coronation revenue whether and the Crown estate certainly won't be sold off, it is our heritage.
I certainly don't want President Johnson or President Blair either
It might not be sold off, but the revenues wouldn't go to Chas or William.
The replacement doesn't need to be a President - that would require such a major constitutional overhaul that it'll never happen.
Simply pass an act of parliament that deems Boris or Blair or whoever to be the next "Heir of the Body of Princess Sophia, Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First". Make sure you first require them to submit a letter of abdication post-dated for ten years in the future.
Problem solved. And even if we ended up with King Boris, it'd be fine. He'd do the job for (much) less than the current one, he'd be happy to turn up and open all the new bus stations you could possibly wish for, and he'd be colourful enough to keep the tabloids happy.
You'd want to make sure that letter of abdication was pretty watertight, and that there were enough counselors of state who could sign bills into law on his behalf in case he gets into a strop and refuses to play nicely. But otherwise, job done.
Then you still end up with an ex politician President, which defeats the point of an apolitical head of state. Neither have royal blood that I can see either
After, what, 13? (14?) generations since Electress Sophia, I suspect that whatever royal magic might have been in her blood has been diluted beyond the threshold of detectability by now.
Her living descendents today likely number in the tens or possibly even hundreds of millions. All of them have roughly as much royal blood as Charles. Even if you did restrict the list of candidates to them, there'd still be plenty to choose from!
(And I note that Charles has never offered any actual evidence of his supposed magic inheritance - you'd think that someone who had built their entire life around heredity would have at least got himself a basic 23andme or AncestryDNA test kit!)
Yes but descendants with as much claim as Charles would still be aristocratic and royal by blood
You really don't have to go back too far to find that both you and I are descended from Royal blood. It is the power of 2 or rice on a chess board story. The only difference between Danny Dyer and you or I is he can document it and we can't.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
The Ukrainians have realised that they need to build their own arms industry and make it the largest in Europe. Insane amounts of artillery, hundreds of thousands of drones, and their own long range missiles that aren’t chipped against striking inside Russian territory. Some progress being made but a way still to go. If they are forced to sue for peace in 2025, they’ll make sure they’re ready for next time.
The Poles have also realised they can’t rely on nato any longer and are arming up. In the UK we still have total complacency with wittering debate about how much to spend on the triple lock and building insulation, and barely a whimper about our gutted military capability. I’d be buying vast amounts of off the shelf cruise missiles, as many gen 4/5 jets as I could get my hands on, building a comprehensive missile defence shield and creating a new branch of the military (and arms production) for drone warfare.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
But you're not particularly open-minded. Nor a particularly free-thinker. What you mainly do is haul the same old prejudices and obsessions from one far-flung location to another. One day we get a bunch of right wing tropes posted from Camden. Next day the same from Cambodia. And so on and so forth.
There's rarely anything surprising let alone original about the view expressed. You seem to confuse (in yourself) a lively intelligence and advanced English language skills for some sort of serious intellect (which you do not have). I'm afraid that is probably your defining characteristic as regards here - an inflated self-image. Eg this regular moanfest about how PB has gone to the dogs. It's just you bigging yourself up again, isn't it?
Anyway, whatever, I'm not sure I can be bothered to post this. It's spot on but what - really - is the point? Perhaps you can tell me.
(have you been to Gran Canaria btw?)
Nice geology and plants in the Canaries, too. Can't imagine why anyone should diss them as a holiday destination.
You've been, have you?
Canaries have the best climate in the world.
I spent a week in 1998 releasing weather balloons from a rooftop in Puerto de la Cruz on Tenerife to map the atmospheric structure.
Weather in PDLC is not great though. Low sea breeze cloud, like San Francisco.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
The Ukrainians have realised that they need to build their own arms industry and make it the largest in Europe. Insane amounts of artillery, hundreds of thousands of drones, and their own long range missiles that aren’t chipped against striking inside Russian territory. Some progress being made but a way still to go. If they are forced to sue for peace in 2025, they’ll make sure they’re ready for next time.
The Poles have also realised they can’t rely on nato any longer and are arming up. In the UK we still have total complacency with wittering debate about how much to spend on the triple lock and building insulation, and barely a whimper about our gutted military capability. I’d be buying vast amounts of off the shelf cruise missiles, as many gen 4/5 jets as I could get my hands on, building a comprehensive missile defence shield and creating a new branch of the military (and arms production) for drone warfare.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
This.
Any other answer is bullshit.
However isnt there a moral obligation to also try and save the lives of young Ukrainian men and not send them into a meatgrinder. For example would you want that for your children?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
This.
Any other answer is bullshit.
However isnt there a moral obligation to also try and save the lives of young Ukrainian men and not send them into a meatgrinder. For example would you want that for your children?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
This.
Any other answer is bullshit.
However isnt there a moral obligation to also try and save the lives of young Ukrainian men and not send them into a meatgrinder. For example would you want that for your children?
No, the moral argument is to join the fight and destroy any Russian forces on Ukrainian territory. Putin will bluster about nuclear escalation, but it's just hot air.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
This.
Any other answer is bullshit.
However isnt there a moral obligation to also try and save the lives of young Ukrainian men and not send them into a meatgrinder. For example would you want that for your children?
No.
Fair enough if thats your position. Sounds pretty heartless to me.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
This.
Any other answer is bullshit.
However isnt there a moral obligation to also try and save the lives of young Ukrainian men and not send them into a meatgrinder. For example would you want that for your children?
No, the moral argument is to join the fight and destroy any Russian forces on Ukrainian territory. Putin will bluster about nuclear escalation, but it's just hot air.
So you are arguing for NATO intervention on the ground then.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
This.
Any other answer is bullshit.
However isnt there a moral obligation to also try and save the lives of young Ukrainian men and not send them into a meatgrinder. For example would you want that for your children?
A compelling image, but it does lead to the question of who put the meatgrinder on Ukranian soil.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
A damn sight cheaper than the Royals I'd wager. Especially after we have sold of all the crown estate to the Chinese...
No, with no royal wedding, jubilee or coronation revenue whether and the Crown estate certainly won't be sold off, it is our heritage.
I certainly don't want President Johnson or President Blair either
It might not be sold off, but the revenues wouldn't go to Chas or William.
The replacement doesn't need to be a President - that would require such a major constitutional overhaul that it'll never happen.
Simply pass an act of parliament that deems Boris or Blair or whoever to be the next "Heir of the Body of Princess Sophia, Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First". Make sure you first require them to submit a letter of abdication post-dated for ten years in the future.
Problem solved. And even if we ended up with King Boris, it'd be fine. He'd do the job for (much) less than the current one, he'd be happy to turn up and open all the new bus stations you could possibly wish for, and he'd be colourful enough to keep the tabloids happy.
You'd want to make sure that letter of abdication was pretty watertight, and that there were enough counselors of state who could sign bills into law on his behalf in case he gets into a strop and refuses to play nicely. But otherwise, job done.
Then you still end up with an ex politician President, which defeats the point of an apolitical head of state. Neither have royal blood that I can see either
After, what, 13? (14?) generations since Electress Sophia, I suspect that whatever royal magic might have been in her blood has been diluted beyond the threshold of detectability by now.
Her living descendents today likely number in the tens or possibly even hundreds of millions. All of them have roughly as much royal blood as Charles. Even if you did restrict the list of candidates to them, there'd still be plenty to choose from!
(And I note that Charles has never offered any actual evidence of his supposed magic inheritance - you'd think that someone who had built their entire life around heredity would have at least got himself a basic 23andme or AncestryDNA test kit!)
The web claims to identify 4973 descendants of Sophia of Hanover.
Edit: another source claims closer to 6000, but those only being the legitimate, Protestant, descendants, who's are in the line of succession.
Can't possibly be that low - even with an average of only two offspring in every generation, there'd be over 8000. With three, there'd be over 1.5 million, and with four it'd be over 65 million.
Families were larger in the past than now, and you'd expect most of her descendents to be wealthier, with more surviving children than average. And, of course, there are multiple generations alive simultaneously.
It's far too close to the end of the work week to do the sums properly, but I reckon that 'tens of millions' is about right.
The more cousin marriages there are, the lower the total figure. Those royals, they liked to keep things reasonably close.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
This.
Any other answer is bullshit.
However isnt there a moral obligation to also try and save the lives of young Ukrainian men and not send them into a meatgrinder. For example would you want that for your children?
No.
Fair enough if thats your position. Sounds pretty heartless to me.
Bugger off back to Moscow.
Its pretty heartless to not support people when a dictator invades and commits atrocities.
Supporting people who want to defend and fight for their own country is not remotely heartless.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
This.
Any other answer is bullshit.
However isnt there a moral obligation to also try and save the lives of young Ukrainian men and not send them into a meatgrinder. For example would you want that for your children?
No, the moral argument is to join the fight and destroy any Russian forces on Ukrainian territory. Putin will bluster about nuclear escalation, but it's just hot air.
So you are arguing for NATO intervention on the ground then.
Yes, why not? It's the best way to protect Ukrainian lives and bring the war to a swift end. It wouldn't have to be NATO per se, just the proverbial coalition of the willing.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
This.
Any other answer is bullshit.
However isnt there a moral obligation to also try and save the lives of young Ukrainian men and not send them into a meatgrinder. For example would you want that for your children?
That is the choice of the young Ukrainian men, not ours. They choose to. Therefore, we support them.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
This.
Any other answer is bullshit.
However isnt there a moral obligation to also try and save the lives of young Ukrainian men and not send them into a meatgrinder. For example would you want that for your children?
That is the choice of the young Ukrainian men, not ours. They choose to. Therefore, we support them.
Well actually its not. Many are hiding from conscription, Its the choice of their leaders yes but not necessarily the choice of young ukrainian men. When people say the ukrainians still want to fight they mean their leaders do.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Overcoming well dug in positions with no air superiority turns out to be just as difficult as in the first half of the 20th C. The real bed shitting moment was the ease with which Ukraine allowed the Russian advance in early 2022, by not blowing up key bridges and rail junctions and not heavily mining the front lines in 2021 when it became clear what was likely to happen. Undoing these mistakes will either take air superiority or hundreds of thousands of lives. Tricky.
Putin is a problem. Russia is a problem. Mucking around with national borders is highly dangerous. Putting it brutally, Ukraine fights Russia so we don't have to. That's the realpolitik reason to arm and fund Ukraine to the hilt.
It would be seen as similar to trying to attack Moscow, in Russia.
It will not be done, for the simple reason that western authorities would correctly see that sort of approach as loony. That's our old friend speaking and back again, our trusty cost-benefit analysis again.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
I don't expect them to do it on their own.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
I don't expect them to do it on their own.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
Biden explictly said that he wouldn't give Ukraine everything they want because it would split NATO.
That's why @FrankBooth is wrong to make the perpetuation of NATO an end in itself.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
I'd like to say Yes - I do really - but with the obvious caveat of "unless it becomes quite clearly futile". As long as the US stays engaged this point should not be reached anytime soon. Maybe Europe alone could replace American support (if they were to disengage) but I'm rather doubtful about that.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
I don't expect them to do it on their own.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
Biden explictly said that he wouldn't give Ukraine everything they want because it would split NATO.
That's why @FrankBooth is wrong to make the perpetuation of NATO an end in itself.
Biden is doing far more for Ukraine than Trump would. On which you are eerily silent.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
I'd like to say Yes - I do really - but with the obvious caveat of "unless it becomes quite clearly futile". As long as the US stays engaged this point should not be reached anytime soon. Maybe Europe alone could replace American support (if they were to disengage) but I'm rather doubtful about that.
No, I reject that caveat.
People were claiming it was quite clearly futile from day one.
It is up to the Ukrainians alone to decide if its futile or not. If they think its not, we should support them 100% and unequivocally.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
I don't expect them to do it on their own.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
Biden explictly said that he wouldn't give Ukraine everything they want because it would split NATO.
That's why @FrankBooth is wrong to make the perpetuation of NATO an end in itself.
Biden is doing far more for Ukraine than Trump would. On which you are eerily silent.
The invasion and prolonged war have happened on Biden's watch, not Trump's.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
I don't expect them to do it on their own.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
Biden explictly said that he wouldn't give Ukraine everything they want because it would split NATO.
That's why @FrankBooth is wrong to make the perpetuation of NATO an end in itself.
Biden is doing far more for Ukraine than Trump would. On which you are eerily silent.
The invasion and prolonged war have happened on Biden's watch, not Trump's.
And, er, Trump's been banging the drum for sending more support to Ukraine and being harder on Putin, has he?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
I don't expect them to do it on their own.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
Biden explictly said that he wouldn't give Ukraine everything they want because it would split NATO.
That's why @FrankBooth is wrong to make the perpetuation of NATO an end in itself.
Biden is doing far more for Ukraine than Trump would. On which you are eerily silent.
The invasion and prolonged war have happened on Biden's watch, not Trump's.
And Trump is currently telling Republicans in Congress not to approve further military funding for Ukraine. As a result, more Ukrainians are dying and Russia is taking more Ukrainian land.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
I don't expect them to do it on their own.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
Biden explictly said that he wouldn't give Ukraine everything they want because it would split NATO.
That's why @FrankBooth is wrong to make the perpetuation of NATO an end in itself.
Biden is doing far more for Ukraine than Trump would. On which you are eerily silent.
The stories say Biden was dragged along by Boris in supporting Ukraine in the early days. His White House has clearly been split in what to do. There’s much finger pointing now at congressional republicans (rightly) but this does rather ignore that Lend-Lease expired entirely unused and that the support with advanced weapons has been luke warm and consistently late. 186 Bradley’s to Ukraine and yet 500 going to Morocco says it all.
The prevailing voices in Washington don’t want Ukraine to decisively win but are happy for the Slavs to kill each other in their hundreds of thousands, so long as it boils the frog off the legacy USSR military stockpile.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
I don't expect them to do it on their own.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
Biden explictly said that he wouldn't give Ukraine everything they want because it would split NATO.
That's why @FrankBooth is wrong to make the perpetuation of NATO an end in itself.
Biden is doing far more for Ukraine than Trump would. On which you are eerily silent.
The invasion and prolonged war have happened on Biden's watch, not Trump's.
The invasion started in 2014. This is just the latest phase.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
I'd like to say Yes - I do really - but with the obvious caveat of "unless it becomes quite clearly futile". As long as the US stays engaged this point should not be reached anytime soon. Maybe Europe alone could replace American support (if they were to disengage) but I'm rather doubtful about that.
No, I reject that caveat.
People were claiming it was quite clearly futile from day one.
It is up to the Ukrainians alone to decide if its futile or not. If they think its not, we should support them 100% and unequivocally.
You can reject it but it remains in the real world. However let's hope we don't get there. This is a very important and just fight and I'm not especially pessimistic about its eventual outcome - not least because I don't see Trump2 coming to pass.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
I don't expect them to do it on their own.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
Biden explictly said that he wouldn't give Ukraine everything they want because it would split NATO.
That's why @FrankBooth is wrong to make the perpetuation of NATO an end in itself.
Biden is doing far more for Ukraine than Trump would. On which you are eerily silent.
The invasion and prolonged war have happened on Biden's watch, not Trump's.
The invasion started in 2014. This is just the latest phase.
True, under Obama.
Accusations of Trump being soft on Putin are so much projection.
They're vicious. The full grown ones have a ferocious bite force, like demented tinsnips. Just as well the lady had the guts to get it out. Probably stunned by the cold, but even so.
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
This oversimplifies the dynamics because one of the key aims of the US/NATO has been to prevent any other country getting directly involved. They are providing the minimum level of support needed to avoid Poland and the Baltics going to war with Russia, but also not really going all out for a Ukrainian victory.
I don't think that's a different dynamic. It's just that the approach has been to cheer Ukraine on as it punches back but then to be only half-hearted in support when the bully keeps punching. That's one of the big frustrations.
You said that "I'm in the punch him back camp" and "it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats" but we're not doing any punching and we're leaving it to our friends in Ukraine to take all the blows. The West under Biden is cowardly.
Yes, I said "I'm" in the punch them back camp, not "The west under Biden".
So you'd favour direct Western military action against Russia? Bomb their positions in Crimea?
I’d favour much more meaningful financial and equipment support to Ukraine, which they’ve been crying out for. They’re not asking for the West to enter the fight.
In your analogy where your friend is getting punched, you'd just cheer them on from the sidelines unless they asked you to intervene?
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Giving them the support they need != cheering them on from the sidelines.
But we're not giving them the support they need, otherwise the war wouldn't have lasted two years. We, collectively, have ummed and erred about providing different types of weapons and this probably contributed to the failure of the counteroffensive in the south.
It took six years to defeat the Nazis, why would defeating Putin be automatically less than two years?
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not remotely comparable to seeking unconditional surrender and conquering Moscow.
No, it's comparable to pushing the Nazis out of France, Poland etc.
If you really think that, then it's clearly inadequate to expect Ukraine to do it on their own.
I don't expect them to do it on their own.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
Yep. There's a large dollop of the old 'cognitive dissonance' around with some of these pro Ukraine PB Trumpers, isn't there.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests...
Comments
Stick around, we’re not all dyed in the wool NATO warmongers. Well, except for Dura Ace I guess, but they’re an ex-warmonger these days I believe..
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Families were larger in the past than now, and you'd expect most of her descendents to be wealthier, with more surviving children than average. And, of course, there are multiple generations alive simultaneously.
It's far too close to the end of the work week to do the sums properly, but I reckon that 'tens of millions' is about right.
It might be better for Ukraine to choose that approach over trying to do the same during active hostilities.
Whatever Ukraine chooses to do, it will have better options and a greater chance of success the more support we provide, so we absolutely should not be trying to pressure them into a permanent settlement with Russia by reducing that support.
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
But I don’t think it’s true that there’s no fresh agenda out there to get enthusiastic about.
Britain has some superb advantages - some relative, some absolute - but the national discourse is hopelessly unimaginative and profoundly depressed.
As for the alternative approach: a problem is the idea that Ukraine would continue receiving enough western aid after a ceasefire. The moment a ceasefire happens, Russia and its agents will be putting pressure on governments to say: "There's peace; giving Ukraine weapon system x might provoke Russia." Which is what we saw before February 2022. Or: "These weapons systems are expensive. Why should we give them a country at peace?"
IMV Putin still thinks he can get a 'win' out of this war politically, by manipulating foreign governments into not supporting Ukraine.
That reduces the number of descendants by 25 by that marriage alone.
Alternatively, if he was self employed, he would find he simply didn't have any income coming in for the period of time he spends looking after his spouse/family.
That's how it works for the rest of us.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
So, WW2 say, MEC says that the actions in the field of the individual British soldier and the individual German soldier should be judged according to the same standard. If the German was 'wrong' to carry out an act, then so was the Brit carrying out the same act. Ditto for if they were 'right'.
Is that the idea?
That is one heavy burden for a man to bear.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
We have disadvantages too, like the shit weather and naval-gazing self obsession.
Our
You can and do post some fascinating and informative stuff, but right now the only thing that’s boring about pb is your moaning.
I get that we’re all humans behind these avatars, and you have reasons for using this as your outlet right now but please, give it a rest.
I had a look at the UK agreement and it commits the UK to continuing quite a high level of support for the next ten years.
Ukraine have also been working directly with Western arms companies too.
I don't say it's the best approach. I don't know. But a ceasefire isn't necessarily the Russian win that it would have looked like 18 months ago.
> he was invited to take as much time as he wanted off but of course as he is self employed it would not be paid.
I believe his reality is much closer to the average than the comfortably salaried and infinitely far from William's.
Likewise to Ukrainian and Russian troops today.
That was an extract from one of my PPE essays, btw.
The West should remember this.
If that is what's going on, the art is to find the one small thing that makes a small but visible improvement. And then repeat, until you have capacity for two small things... You get the idea.
The hope for Britain has to be that not being actively self-harming yields enough progress to create some room to manoevre in the next year or three. Doesn't seem impossible.
It's the nice bouncy meter, with syncopation on wokerati. The To-fu eat-ing woke-er-aa-ti
The crown is an integral part of the British state.
If the state ceases to be a monarchy then all the roles, responsibilities, obligations, rights etc of the crown get transfered from the crown to whatever replaces it.
The private property of the Windsors is their private property, but the states rights and responsibilities are not.
The GOP led by Trump standing in the way of that is cowardly.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
Any other answer is bullshit.
The Poles have also realised they can’t rely on nato any longer and are arming up. In the UK we still have total complacency with wittering debate about how much to spend on the triple lock and building insulation, and barely a whimper about our gutted military capability. I’d be buying vast amounts of off the shelf cruise missiles, as many gen 4/5 jets as I could get my hands on, building a comprehensive missile defence shield and creating a new branch of the military (and arms production) for drone warfare.
By your own argument, what you are advocating is cowardice.
Weather in PDLC is not great though. Low sea breeze cloud, like San Francisco.
Biden - 38%
Harris - 55%
M Obama - 63%
Newsom - 70%
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
Its pretty heartless to not support people when a dictator invades and commits atrocities.
Supporting people who want to defend and fight for their own country is not remotely heartless.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-68250382
It will not be done, for the simple reason that western authorities would correctly see that sort of approach as loony. That's our old friend speaking and back again, our trusty cost-benefit analysis again.
I expect them to do it with our support. Support the UK under Boris onwards (and before too), and US under Biden etc have been offering.
But support the GOP under Trumps influence are refusing. For which you are eerily silent. Funny that. 🙄
That's why @FrankBooth is wrong to make the perpetuation of NATO an end in itself.
People were claiming it was quite clearly futile from day one.
It is up to the Ukrainians alone to decide if its futile or not. If they think its not, we should support them 100% and unequivocally.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
The prevailing voices in Washington don’t want Ukraine to decisively win but are happy for the Slavs to kill each other in their hundreds of thousands, so long as it boils the frog off the legacy USSR military stockpile.
Clapham chemical attack suspect Abdul Shokoor Ezedi may be dead after going into the River Thames, police say.
At a press conference on Friday police said their working hypothesis was that he had gone into the water after last being seen at Chelsea Bridge.
No body has been found and officers said one may never be recovered.
Accusations of Trump being soft on Putin are so much projection.
They are the heirs to the 1930s Tory appeasers.
No, me neither. So why do you continue to support him?