Rob, there are restrictions on the passage of Russian military vessels, limitations on the numbers at any one time and notifications. Sure you mentioned it in your references to it.
There are not restrictions on the number of capital ships, only on the number of escorts to capital ships. I don't think there are any restrictions on the passage of non-capital ships travelling alone for a Black Sea power. Yes, there is a notification period, but all countries have to notify before passage. Of course, you could simply disregard the Treaty and blockade the strait.
Rob, there are restrictions on the passage of Russian military vessels, limitations on the numbers at any one time and notifications. Sure you mentioned it in your references to it.
There are not restrictions on the number of capital ships, only on the number of escorts to capital ships. I don't think there are any restrictions on the passage of non-capital ships travelling alone for a Black Sea power. Yes, there is a notification period, but all countries have to notify before passage. Of course, you could simply disregard the Treaty and blockade the strait.
I probably over elaborated the restrictions to a bland one liner because the bottom line is that the suggestion is to suspend the agreement.
I am much amused that in addition to your Maxwell style pension asset accounting that you don't know the difference between solvency ie debt and liquidity ie cashflow.
Your claim that house prices are only rising in nominal terms is also an eyeopener.
But your report that Osborne has no interest in ONS stats does ring true.
Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.
Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.
It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.
Antony Beevor in "The Second World War" (Phoenix, 2013) writes:
There is nevertheless a real danger of the Second World War becoming an instant reference point, both for modern history and for all contemporary conflicts. In a crisis, journalists and politicians alike instinctively reach for parallels with the Second World War, either to dramatize the gravity of the situation or to sound Rooseveltian or Churchillian. To compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, or to liken Nasser or Saddam Hussein to Hitler, is not just to make an inaccurate historical parallel. Such comparisons are gravely misleading and risk producing the wrong strategic response. Leaders of democracies can become prisoners of their own rhetoric, just like dictators.
Samizdat publication, Comrade Sunilsky.
We are referring your endorsement to the CPSU Culture Committee.
My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"
Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.
".... And do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."
...
The road down the Danube Valley to the black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics - not only power military politics but power economic politics -- radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot....
I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.
Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."
Jack
Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.
Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.
It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.
Churchill was very keen on supporting those countries. It was Churchill, more than anyone, who declared the Cold War against the Soviet Union (Iron Curtain speech and all that), after three and a half years when the Reds had been anti-Nazi allies.
True, but without allied or popular support all he could offer was fine words.
The countries most likely to support Western military interventions in The Ukraine are France and Germany.
This is not surprising. They have local graveyards to tend.
France and Germany send troops ? Not very likely.
Mr. Brooke, have you been drinking too much fine [Warwickshire] claret with your roast pork?
It was a joke in my usual bad taste!
I think you've been on the alcopops Avery, I was responding in a similar tonge in cheek manner.
My apologies, Mr. Brooke.
It was the Bushmills single malt.
I must admit Mr Pole I tend to have some sympathy with Mr Putin in this mess. Ideally we should keep out of it. The place just has its borders drawn the wrong way.
You are Neville Chamberlain and I claim that waved piece of paper.
I assume you need the paper for your ARSE ?
Tell you what Jack I'll back you on sending troops to the Ukraine just as long as those called up and sent in to the front lines are the sons and daughters of politicians.
I am much amused that in addition to your Maxwell style pension asset accounting that you don't know the difference between solvency ie debt and liquidity ie cashflow.
Your claim that house prices are only rising in nominal terms is also an eyeopener.
But your report that Osborne has no interest in ONS stats does ring true.
You're spoiling for a fight, ar.
Like the new Ukrainian govermnent, I will not be provoked.
On a higher level RN's description of Osborne as 'extremely impressive' leads me to speculate on what achievements would impress various people.
Now if like RN you are an affluent City cultist living in deepest Sussex then a Chancellor who is able to get house prices and City bonuses rising might well seem to be a veritable god in heaven.
However Conservative majorities aren't built on the likes of the good RN but upon attracting the support of the lower middle and skilled working classes in the midlands and north.
And it is here that Osborne's achievements amount to:
Three calendar years of falling industrial production Falling productivity and real wages A £600bn increase in government debt A perpetual trade deficit
As elections steadily trend away from class based voting towards a rough split between right-wing wealth creators and left-wing wealth consumers then it is vital for Conservative fortunes that wealth creation is as widespread throughout Britain as possible. The belief that the City can create enough wealth by itself, irrespective of the economic fallacy, is disasterous for the Conservatives as it relegates most of the country to dependence upon the government for its income and subsequently dominance by the Labour political philosophy.
To anyone following the the Ukraine Crisis, the Russian TV channel RT is required viewing. A very different tone to other media. An insight into Russian thinking perhaps?
To anyone following the the Ukraine Crisis, the Russian TV channel RT is required viewing. A very different tone to other media. An insight into Russian thinking perhaps?
For 'facts' and the official Kremlin line, ITAR-TASS is more reliable.
But RT is wonderful for capturing the tone of Moscow.
To anyone following the the Ukraine Crisis, the Russian TV channel RT is required viewing. A very different tone to other media. An insight into Russian thinking perhaps?
For 'facts' and the official Kremlin line, ITAR-TASS is more reliable.
But RT is wonderful for capturing the tone of Moscow.
Max Keiser is always fun to watch even if you don't take him seriously
To anyone following the the Ukraine Crisis, the Russian TV channel RT is required viewing. A very different tone to other media. An insight into Russian thinking perhaps?
It's *always* a very different tone from other media on international issues. I'm not really sure why they've chosen to broadcast on Freeview to start with, given how much West-bashing output they screen.
Al Jazeera, by contrast, I find extremely good and more free from bias than domestic UK broadcasters.
Re Ukraine, we must leave the politician's syllogism behind and look at our options.
Russia's willingness to interfere with sovereignty in its near abroad is not new. We didn't do anything meaningful about South Ossetia and most people have never even heard of Transnistria. So Russia expects to get away with any attempt to carve out Russian majority areas of Ukraine again.
Its logic for doing so in the Crimea is stronger than it ever was in South Ossetia or Transnistria. It has no justification for doing so in eastern Ukraine.
Should we directly intervene militarily? What would our military aims be? In any case, it seems doubtful without a major conflict that we could defeat Russia in its own backyard, a conflict that we are totally unprepared for. Given that these areas seem eager to unite with Russia, this seems like a bad idea.
But there are useful things that we can do.
1) the EU can put the rest of Ukraine on a fast track to EU membership, and give it shedloads of practical economic support. 2) NATO can dramatically increase its presence on the European border with Russia. 3) we can put in place a proper system of heavy economic sanctions on Russia until it rethinks. Targeting the oligarchs in particular would seem like an excellent way of concentrating the minds of Russia's government. 4) the reset with Russia needs resetting to permafrost for the foreseeable future.
We can also close the straits of the Bosphorus, so that Russia is denied access to the Med and does not benefit from seizing the Crimea.
To anyone following the the Ukraine Crisis, the Russian TV channel RT is required viewing. A very different tone to other media. An insight into Russian thinking perhaps?
It's *always* a very different tone from other media on international issues. I'm not really sure why they've chosen to broadcast on Freeview to start with, given how much West-bashing output they screen.
Al Jazeera, by contrast, I find extremely good and more free from bias than domestic UK broadcasters.
I like Al Jazeera too - although I get a specific US based version of it, rather than the Dohar based feed.
The general tendency to pick sides in ethnic disputes is unwise, and the right approach is surely to try to respect the wishes of populations to belong to whatever country they want. It's the way that Denmark solved the Slesvig-Holstein problem that had been going on indefinitely - offered full Danish rule after WW1, the Danes declined, opting for referendums in each district on whether pelople wanted to be part of Germany or part of Denmark. Since the respective sides were mostly close to the country they wanted to join, it wotked out well, and the region has been broadly at peace ever since.
The West should support the principle that, in general, people should be allowed to belong where they want to belong, however eccentric we may think their preferences. We have different views about what Scotland should do, but nobody is really saying they don't have a right to independence if that's what they want. That's not based on historical justification (always murky) but simply on natural justice - if they want to be part of the UK, that's great, if they don't, OK.
Unbelievable. This isn't just an internal ethnic debate. It's like calling the Iran-Iraq war an "ethnic debate". This is one country crossing international borders to invade, and possibly annex, parts of another. It's hard to think of a more clear-cut example of breaching international law.
Like the vast majority of Brits. I don't give a f*ck about Ukraine or the Ukrainians, or indeed the Russians or the Crimeans.
WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE WARS. Not unless we are directly threatened or our closest allies (i.e. EU or NATO members) are being invaded, or the bad guy is ridiculously easy to beat, or there is some obvious genocide.
Apart from that, WE DON'T CARE.
Yes it's lamentably pathetic pacificism blah de blah, but it is also the case. The Miliband Doctrine is supported by the majority of the nation, and probably the majority of the voters in the West, America definitely included.
And this is how the West loses its grip on the international system. Not by a loss of fundamental power, but due to an unwillingness to stand by its principles when it is difficult. This country had character once.
Like the vast majority of Brits. I don't give a f*ck about Ukraine or the Ukrainians, or indeed the Russians or the Crimeans.
WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE WARS. Not unless we are directly threatened or our closest allies (i.e. EU or NATO members) are being invaded, or the bad guy is ridiculously easy to beat, or there is some obvious genocide.
Apart from that, WE DON'T CARE.
Yes it's lamentably pathetic pacificism blah de blah, but it is also the case. The Miliband Doctrine is supported by the majority of the nation, and probably the majority of the voters in the West, America definitely included.
Yes, most of us don't care about Ukraine and don't want any mroe wars. But I remain baffled at the idea that it is fine for us to let other people just go about with their wars and power games, which do affect us. Doing nothing here seems like it will be the decision, and it may be correct, but the instinctive reaction that nothing is ever of interest to us and that acting is never appropriate - for such has been the tone of plenty of rhetoric - is just bloody stupid, so as much as you may feel the need to shout that we don't want wars and don't care, it is at least important to consider acting (and we're not even talking about militarily here) each time such events occur, so that nothing is discounted out of hand as a matter of course.
I think it important that, whether action is taken or not, options are considered for each one, and that's why the anti-war voices need to speak up each time, rather than we just take them to their logical conclusion and outright state we will never get involved anywhere.
I must say as well that for someone who often laments the stupidity of the West in not facing up to the long term trend of China becoming more dominant, you don't appear to care in this instance about any potential long term implications to committing indefinitely to never interfering with the foreign affairs power games of the world. To wit, 'People now don't care about x or want wars, so we should never do so', even if it was to our benefit apparently.
We may not want to be involved in disputes or wars, but then the whole existence of foreign affairs is that we are affected by how things play out in other nations - if we don't play the game our consciences might well be better, but it won't stop our opponents from playing it, and eventually that will be to our detriment.
I would also point out that plenty of people would call your red lines (getting involved when we or our closest allies are threatened, it is easy to beat the enemy, or some obvious genocide) as being out of step with the public, who don't give a sh*t about any of those things either, so we really are talking a matter of degree here.
It's amazing how many astroturfers there are on newspaper comment pages at the mo - lots of russkis but also loads from other places with most of them pretending to be Brits but getting little things wrong. Quite weird.
Like the vast majority of Brits. I don't give a f*ck about Ukraine or the Ukrainians, or indeed the Russians or the Crimeans.
WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE WARS. Not unless we are directly threatened or our closest allies (i.e. EU or NATO members) are being invaded, or the bad guy is ridiculously easy to beat, or there is some obvious genocide.
Apart from that, WE DON'T CARE.
Yes it's lamentably pathetic pacificism blah de blah, but it is also the case. The Miliband Doctrine is supported by the majority of the nation, and probably the majority of the voters in the West, America definitely included.
Yes, most of us don't care about Ukraine and don't want any mroe wars. But I remain baffled at the idea that it is fine for us to let other people just go about with their wars and power games, which do affect us. Doing nothing here seems like it will be the decision, and it may be correct, but the instinctive reaction that nothing is ever of interest to us and that acting is never appropriate - for such has been the tone of plenty of rhetoric - is just bloody stupid, so as much as you may feel the need to shout that we don't want wars and don't care, it is at least important to consider acting (and we're not even talking about militarily here) each time such events occur, so that nothing is discounted out of hand as a matter of course.
I think it important that, whether action is taken or not, options are considered for each one, and that's why the anti-war voices need to speak up each time, rather than we just take them to their logical conclusion and outright state we will never get involved anywhere.
I must say as well that for someone who often laments the stupidity of the West in not facing up to the long term trend of China becoming more dominant, you don't appear to care in this instance about any potential long term implications to committing indefinitely to never interfering with the foreign affairs power games of the world. To wit, 'People now don't care about x or want wars, so we should never do so', even if it was to our benefit apparently.
We may not want to be involved in disputes or wars, but then the whole existence of foreign affairs is that we are affected by how things play out in other nations - if we don't play the game our consciences might well be better, but it won't stop our opponents from playing it, and eventually that will be to our detriment.
I would also point out that plenty of people would call your red lines (getting involved when we or our closest allies are threatened, it is easy to beat the enemy, or some obvious genocide) as being out of step with the public, who don't give a sh*t about any of those things either, so we really are talking a matter of degree here.
"Russia has not only emerged as the EU’s biggest gas supplier, but is also the biggest exporter of crude oil, uranium and even coal to the EU. In addition to this, Russia ranks third for electricity exports to the EU...Russia also has a reciprocal dependence, in terms of its energy exports, on the European energy market, which accounts for 88% of its oil exports, 70% of its gas exports and 50% of its coal exports."
Syria. Just so we don't forget. There are rumours of a chemical attack on a rebel held area east of Damascus. Certainly suffocation cases reported.
There are large scale Russian troop movements North of Ukraine today, including what appear to be fresh troops brought into the region. Those forces are large and along with those deployed south East of Ukraine represent a not inconsiderable capability. The accumulated units and type are in excess of requirements to defend the borders, lets put it that way. The US reports a number of thousand of additional military personnel shipped into the Crimea on top of the 6000 shipped in already. It is in excess of the 'stability' requirement so its clearly designed to ensure absolutely overwhelming superiority in Crimea and make it hard for anyone to suggest they should leave....
Polish forces appear to be on the move, something the defence ministry acknowledged but have said is not related to events to their east. It is related to events.
The Russians look to have landed an intelligence gathering vessel into the Crimea as well. Wonder who it is monitoring, Ukrainian military or the rather unmentioned but noticeable appearance of NATO assets that I talked about in an earlier post.
The Russians do not look,. however, to have bargained on the Ukrainians in the Crimea holding firm. Its perfectly viable to just surround locations and wait it out but they demanded hours and hours ago that they Ukrainians down tools. Many of them have not.
The West should support the principle that, in general, people should be allowed to belong where they want to belong, however eccentric we may think their preferences. We have different views about what Scotland should do, but nobody is really saying they don't have a right to independence if that's what they want. That's not based on historical justification (always murky) but simply on natural justice - if they want to be part of the UK, that's great, if they don't, OK.
Right, but how does that mean Russia should not be opposed? They are stacking the deck to impact what Crimea does and what Ukraine does. We also tried to do so. This is not some merely internal matter and we cannot pretend it is. Both us and them have support for our interference. This is not an issue of, oh, X wants to be Y so why should we care. Why is it ok for Russia to try to force an outcome it wants, with plenty of support, but apparently blasphemy for us to even talk about weaksauce options of defiance which we all know won't amount to anything anyway. The Russians are being the more aggressive actors in this, but it would be wrong to call them villains, particularly when many in the Crimea are happy for them to act as they are, but we aren't the villains either, and by always labelling our possible interventions as harmful or useless, that is what we are saying - that it is not ok for us to involve ourselves, but fine for others to do so.
It's the hypocrisy I just don't get to be honest. We and the Russians, and any other powers, all like to say that we only operate under international law and for the greater good and all that crap, but we all know each of us to a larger or greater degree acts as we can get away with to accrue the most benefit. That's sad but it's reality. But the unmistakable impression I get from so many commentators is that we are so arrogant and wrong to involve ourselves in anything, and that we are selfish and destructive. But nations won't not be inteferred with if we don't interfere. But apparently letting other powers have free rein to do whatever they want, which could end up negatively impacting our interests, is always the best option.
To anyone following the the Ukraine Crisis, the Russian TV channel RT is required viewing. A very different tone to other media. An insight into Russian thinking perhaps?
It's *always* a very different tone from other media on international issues. I'm not really sure why they've chosen to broadcast on Freeview to start with, given how much West-bashing output they screen.
Al Jazeera, by contrast, I find extremely good and more free from bias than domestic UK broadcasters.
It's interesting to see how many British talking heads (often academics) they manage to dig up who are prepared to denounce their own govt, the West and justify whatever Moscow says.
Like the vast majority of Brits. I don't give a f*ck about Ukraine or the Ukrainians, or indeed the Russians or the Crimeans.
WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE WARS. Not unless we are directly threatened or our closest allies (i.e. EU or NATO members) are being invaded, or the bad guy is ridiculously easy to beat, or there is some obvious genocide.
Apart from that, WE DON'T CARE.
Yes it's lamentably pathetic pacificism blah de blah, but it is also the case. The Miliband Doctrine is supported by the majority of the nation, and probably the majority of the voters in the West, America definitely included.
Yes, most of us don't care about Ukraine and don't want any mroe wars. But I remain baffled at the idea that it is fine for us to let other people just go about with their wars and power games, which do affect us. Doing nothing here seems like it will be the decision, and it may be correct, but the instinctive reaction that nothing is ever of interest to us and that acting is never appropriate - for such has been the tone of plenty of rhetoric - is just bloody stupid, so as much as you may feel the need to shout that we don't want wars and don't care, it is at least important to consider acting (and we're not even talking about militarily here) each time such events occur, so that nothing is discounted out of hand as a matter of course.
We may not want to be involved in disputes or wars, but then the whole existence of foreign affairs is that we are affected by how things play out in other nations - if we don't play the game our consciences might well be better, but it won't stop our opponents from playing it, and eventually that will be to our detriment.
I would also point out that plenty of people would call your red lines (getting involved when we or our closest allies are threatened, it is easy to beat the enemy, or some obvious genocide) as being out of step with the public, who don't give a sh*t about any of those things either, so we really are talking a matter of degree here.
Do you support rebuilding the armed forces?
Whose armed forces? Ours? It'd be nice to have a large military with more options, but I don't think we can afford to project power like we used to, so a scale back is probably warranted. What I'm annoyed about is more the comments made that the level of intervention even to the point of diplomatic comments and comdemnations (that is, merely taking a verbal stand against another's, say Russia's actions, should not be contemplated because pissing them off is never ever worth it) is not ok for us, because it escalates things over something no-one cares about.
I remember receiving a rather rambling email via young Bob, which brings to mind the Liam Halligan column today in the Telegraph. I wouldn't want you to miss it as I know what a great admirer of him you are.
You may also be interested in that I have noticed a correlation between industiral output and home ownership. After rising throughout the 20th century to an all time peak just after 2000 they had each fallen by 2013 to their 1988 level.
There is clearly a general connection between the two factors - higher industrial output means a wealthier nation which leads to higher home ownership.
But I'll leave the exact calculation of the relationship to a PPE student. Provided that is there is one willing to think outside the metropolitan box.
It's amazing how many astroturfers there are on newspaper comment pages at the mo - lots of russkis but also loads from other places with most of them pretending to be Brits but getting little things wrong. Quite weird.
Would they be enthusiastic amateurs or actual paid astroturfers I wonder? I guess with so few English speakers knowing russian any attempts in the opposite direction would be more official than amateur.
It's interesting to see how many British talking heads (often academics) they manage to dig up who are prepared to denounce their own govt, the West and justify whatever Moscow says.
There are way too many people trying to score political points, when we need a united front against the most blatant Russian aggression in many years. Whatever Ukraine's future may be, it should be for the people of Ukraine to decide not Vladimir Putin.
The West should support the principle that, in general, people should be allowed to belong where they want to belong, however eccentric we may think their preferences. We have different views about what Scotland should do, but nobody is really saying they don't have a right to independence if that's what they want. That's not based on historical justification (always murky) but simply on natural justice - if they want to be part of the UK, that's great, if they don't, OK.
Right, but how does that mean Russia should not be opposed? They are stacking the deck to impact what Crimea does and what Ukraine does. We also tried to do so. Both us and them have support for our interference. This is not an issue of, oh, X wants to be Y so why should we care. Why is it ok for Russia to try to force an outcome it wants, with plenty of support, but apparently blasphemy for us to even talk about weaksauce options of defiance which we all know won't amount to anything anyway. The Russians are being the more aggressive actors in this, but it would be wrong to call them villains, particularly when many in the Crimea are happy for them to act as they are, but we aren't the villains either, and by always labelling our possible interventions as harmful or useless, that is what we are saying - that it is not ok for us to involve ourselves, but fine for others to do so.
It's the hypocrisy I just don't get to be honest. We and the Russians, and any other powers, all like to say that we only operate under international law and for the greater good and all that crap, but we all know each of us to a larger or greater degree acts as we can get away with to accrue the most benefit. That's sad but it's reality. But the unmistakable impression I get from so many commentators is that we are so arrogant and wrong to involve ourselves in anything, and that we are selfish and destructive. But nations won't not be inteferred with if we don't interfere. But apparently letting other powers have free rein to do whatever they want, which could end up negatively impacting our interests, is always the best option.
Except of course we have already been interfering - or at least the EU has. They have done all they can to destabilise Ukraine in order to get a pro EU regime installed and now they are acting all horrified when Russia decides not to play their game. The idea that it was Russia that kicked off this chain of events would be laughable if the end result were not so serious.
We have spent the last few decades bringing about regime change across the world and pretending we were doing it for the greater good and now that has come back to bite us. The West deserves all it gets over the Ukraine.
It's amazing how many astroturfers there are on newspaper comment pages at the mo - lots of russkis but also loads from other places with most of them pretending to be Brits but getting little things wrong. Quite weird.
Would they be enthusiastic amateurs or actual paid astroturfers I wonder? I guess with so few English speakers knowing russian any attempts in the opposite direction would be more official than amateur.
could be enthusiastic amateurs though i'd have thought people like that are more keen on arguing with people in their own country? dunno though.
Whose armed forces? Ours? It'd be nice to have a large military with more options, but I don't think we can afford to project power like we used to, so a scale back is probably warranted. What I'm annoyed about is more the comments made that the level of intervention even to the point of diplomatic comments and comdemnations (that is, merely taking a verbal stand against another's, say Russia's actions, should not be contemplated because pissing them off is never ever worth it) is not ok for us, because it escalates things over something no-one cares about.
Fair enough. Personally I think talking big without anything to back it up is embarrassing.
re:Polish military - would that be the Tanks, APC's and assorted kit being moved by rail from the Baltic north to the Ukrainian border. Seems at least an Armoured Division?
re:Polish military - would that be the Tanks, APC's and assorted kit being moved by rail from the Baltic north to the Ukrainian border. Seems at least an Armoured Division?
Couldn't comment on its structure but the stories do focus around the rail movements, which could be anything, lets be honest, but also that a beefed command unit is being established closer to the Eastern border. The latter is in its way much more significant
Except of course we have already been interfering - or at least the EU has. They have done all they can to destabilise Ukraine in order to get a pro EU regime installed and now they are acting all horrified when Russia decides not to play their game. The idea that it was Russia that kicked off this chain of events would be laughable if the end result were not so serious.
We have spent the last few decades bringing about regime change across the world and pretending we were doing it for the greater good and now that has come back to bite us. The West deserves all it gets over the Ukraine.
I've not said this was all Russia who kicked off this chain. I said it would be wrong to call them the villlains and I've stated multiple times that we also interfere with Ukraine and other nations, so I don't know why your answer's tone is that I think otherwise.
My point is that we are not blameless when it comes to interferring, and the Russian's certainly aren't (and more the point, are just as guilty as us as pretending they don't interfere for their own purposes), so why is it that it is beneficial to anybody, including Ukraine, for us to unilaterally simply stop playing power games right now? That doesn't stop Russia playing their own games, which hardly have universal support in Ukraine either.
I find it an absurdity to condemn Western actions in Ukraine as beyond the pale, deserve all they get for their arrogance and stupidty, but that that somehow means the Russians should be free to play the same power games arrogantly and stupidly, which by suggesting that we should never have interfered and should not now, when this will leave the Russians a free hand, is the only conclusion I am able to reach.
One rule for us (Interference is never ok, how dare we be so arrogant), one rule for Russia (To even diplomaticallty condemn them would be interference by us and so not ok, how dare we be so arrogant to seek to diplomatically oppose Russia separating Crimea from the rest of Ukraine - when even though many Crimeans support that does not make it ok, lest we think it would be ok for us to do so).
Ideally no-one would interfere in any one's business. But that is not what happens, and if we don't, it doesn't stop others from doing it, and sometimes (maybe not even this time) keeping our options open and opposing someone elses, is required for our benefit and even that of others. Yes, this would apply to Russia too. I merely oppose the universal criticism of our interventions as something univesally and uniquely condemnatory in foreign policy, when sometimes it is necessary precisely because everyone is at it.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that much of western Europe - (presumably including the UK?) gets the gas to heat its homes from Russia.
Is this in fact true?
The EU takes a great deal of gas from Russia - the UK very little. Our main non-UK gas supplier is Norway who currently provide us with about 30% of our total usage. We have taken some gas from the EU market in the past when supplies from Norway have been disrupted or curtailed and of course this means we have had some supply from Russia. But currently this is small and intermittent.
Whose armed forces? Ours? It'd be nice to have a large military with more options, but I don't think we can afford to project power like we used to, so a scale back is probably warranted. What I'm annoyed about is more the comments made that the level of intervention even to the point of diplomatic comments and comdemnations (that is, merely taking a verbal stand against another's, say Russia's actions, should not be contemplated because pissing them off is never ever worth it) is not ok for us, because it escalates things over something no-one cares about.
Fair enough. Personally I think talking big without anything to back it up is embarrassing.
That is a big problem, although not as much as the talking big with potentially hardware to back it up, but everyone knows there is no will on either side to back it up, so it is wasted money and bluster. Has prevented bigger confrontations, but makes stopping the little provocations of bigger players difficult, which is hard for those in the middle.
Can now confirm proper military skirmishes at Ukrainian military facilities in Crimea.
How dare those Western backed Ukrainians intefere with the will of the Crimean people and their Russian protectors! Sheer arrogance, they should not interefere when the will of Crimea is clear, and no doubt wouldn't have if not for those interferring westerners.
Seriously though, how far will this go? I had assumed that the endgoal would be that in exchange for Crimea becoming even more autonomous than it already was, but officially still within Ukraine, the Russians would not torpedo eventual financial support to prop up the new Kiev authorities.
Like the vast majority of Brits. I don't give a f*ck about Ukraine or the Ukrainians, or indeed the Russians or the Crimeans.
WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE WARS. Not unless we are directly threatened or our closest allies (i.e. EU or NATO members) are being invaded, or the bad guy is ridiculously easy to beat, or there is some obvious genocide.
Apart from that, WE DON'T CARE.
Yes it's lamentably pathetic pacificism blah de blah, but it is also the case. The Miliband Doctrine is supported by the majority of the nation, and probably the majority of the voters in the West, America definitely included.
.
I would also point out that plenty of people would call your red lines (getting involved when we or our closest allies are threatened, it is easy to beat the enemy, or some obvious genocide) as being out of step with the public, who don't give a sh*t about any of those things either, so we really are talking a matter of degree here.
Er, when have I ever called for the West to "do something" about the rise of China? Hint: I haven't. Ever.
I did not mean to imply that! My point was you want people to face up to the long term fact of Chinese power (that is, people are not recognising it because it is not fully here yet, but they should pay attention to it), but that you did not seem to care about any long term impacts that arise from the implication arising from 'we don't want wars/interference under any circumstances' (and for the record I'm hardly pro-war or interference - right or wrong I opposed Afhanistan and Iraq and Syria. I did support Libya, but even the Russians permitted that one to go ahead by abstaining) has consequences in that it allows all other global power players free rein, which could have negative consequences for us.
This is a small confrontation in a small area, with minor implications. My concern is shutting off an entire option as a matter of principle is dangerously limiting, and that given you have taken a long term view when it comes to global economic realities, a longer term view of global power relations - tied to but not entirely subsumed within the economic reality - is merely prudent.
Man, I need to learn to how to summarise something, I don't think the character limits can handle my ramblings.
For years I've had a rule that if one of my folks wants to pitch me an unsolicited idea for a project or whatever, if he or she can't pique my interest with a single 8 1/2 x 11 sheet in 10pt arial, then don't bother. You'd be amazed how consise people can be with a litle encouragement...
Explosions heard in Simferopol and reports that Russian forces storming arms depot in Belbek, Crimea
Dirty western intervention. If they'd let Russia do whatever they wanted and never tempted Ukraine to another path, none of this would have happend. And as well know, if I tred on someone's toe, I remain the sole party at fault when they punch me in the face. They would not have reacted had I not been so clumsy, I and the three people behind me would be getting what we deserve.
Putin will find very quickly that his backers don't want a conflagration in Ukraine.
Incidentally this Ukrainian Admiral must go down as the most shabby person ever to fly his flag. To accept a new appointment and then defect in just a few hours beggars belief.
Old joke, but probably relevant : 1966 world cup when a Russian referee and 100,000 said it was a goal. Mind you, that was in the day when a rouble was worth a rouble ;^)
Putin will find very quickly that his backers don't want a conflagration in Ukraine.
Incidentally this Ukrainian Admiral must go down as the most shabby person ever to fly his flag. To accept a new appointment and then defect in just a few hours beggars belief.
Old joke, but probably relevant : 1966 world cup when a Russian referee and 100,000 said it was a goal. Mind you, that was in the day when a rouble was worth a rouble ;^)
Man, I need to learn to how to summarise something, I don't think the character limits can handle my ramblings.
For years I've had a rule that if one of my folks wants to pitch me an unsolicited idea for a project or whatever, if he or she can't pique my interest with a single 8 1/2 x 11 sheet in 10pt arial, then don't bother. You'd be amazed how consise people can be with a litle encouragement...
Eschew Obfuscation :-).
I excuse myself that if I cannot word vomit all my ideas at 2230 on the internet after a week of being sick, when can I?
You should make people manage it when 11pt arial. I believe that is the standard minimum thesedays to comply with poor of sight rules, and make their job all the harder to get your interest. Next year? Using 12pt.
@another_richard - More grave matters this evening, but, briefly, what is impressive about Osborne's handling of the economy has been his near-perfect judgement in getting the public finances back towards a semblance of sanity without plunging the country into a maelstrom of insolvencies and unemployment. Against this, you keep quoting figures showing that all is not perfect with the economy, and that forecasts weren't met, as though those were some kind of clinching arguments. Yes, of course things are tough, and of course there is more to do - the starting point was the UK staring into the abyss, and (to everyone's surprise) world economic conditions, and particularly commodity-price inflation and the Eurozone mess, turned out to be much, much worse than expected. But Osborne kept his nerve, and things have progressed as well as they good have done. It will be a case-study for future economic historians, where the UK and the US will be cited as the two countries which got it right.
To reverse the question: if you think Osborne screwed up, who on earth do you think did better amongst finance ministers of major economies?
As regards house prices, you obviously haven't been following what is going on. I suggest you look through the results of the big housebuilding firms like Persimmon, Redrow, Bovis, Crest Nicholson, etc. They are building houses as fast as they possibly can. The policy is working.
Putin will find very quickly that his backers don't want a conflagration in Ukraine.
Incidentally this Ukrainian Admiral must go down as the most shabby person ever to fly his flag. To accept a new appointment and then defect in just a few hours beggars belief.
Old joke, but probably relevant : 1966 world cup when a Russian referee and 100,000 said it was a goal. Mind you, that was in the day when a rouble was worth a rouble ;^)
Another old joke from my schol days, but possibly also relevant soon - burglars broke into the Kremlin and stole next year's election results.
Putin will find very quickly that his backers don't want a conflagration in Ukraine.
Incidentally this Ukrainian Admiral must go down as the most shabby person ever to fly his flag. To accept a new appointment and then defect in just a few hours beggars belief.
Old joke, but probably relevant : 1966 world cup when a Russian referee and 100,000 said it was a goal. Mind you, that was in the day when a rouble was worth a rouble ;^)
Another old joke from my school days, but possibly also relevant soon - burglars broke into the Kremlin and stole next year's election results.
Aw man, we children of the 1990s lost out on so many good USSR jokes. We had to use recycled WW2 jokes, which just didn't have the same topical relevance and humour.
Man, I need to learn to how to summarise something, I don't think the character limits can handle my ramblings.
For years I've had a rule that if one of my folks wants to pitch me an unsolicited idea for a project or whatever, if he or she can't pique my interest with a single 8 1/2 x 11 sheet in 10pt arial, then don't bother. You'd be amazed how consise people can be with a litle encouragement.. Eschew Obfuscation :-).
I excuse myself that if I cannot word vomit all my ideas at 2230 on the internet after a week of being sick, when can I?
You should make people manage it when 11pt arial. I believe that is the standard minimum thesedays to comply with poor of sight rules, and make their job all the harder to get your interest. Next year? Using 12pt.
To be honest, I enjoyed reading your vomit. - so to speak.
10pt arial with 0.5" margins all round - I didn't want to appear unreasonable :-)
Ravi sees us home, always rely on an Essex boy to deliver
He was there at the end because he hadn't had a proper chance to get himself out in some stupid talentless way and he wasn't good enough to bat further up the order.
Putin will find very quickly that his backers don't want a conflagration in Ukraine.
Incidentally this Ukrainian Admiral must go down as the most shabby person ever to fly his flag. To accept a new appointment and then defect in just a few hours beggars belief.
Old joke, but probably relevant : 1966 world cup when a Russian referee and 100,000 said it was a goal. Mind you, that was in the day when a rouble was worth a rouble ;^)
Another old joke from my school days, but possibly also relevant soon - burglars broke into the Kremlin and stole next year's election results.
Aw man, we children of the 1990s lost out on so many good USSR jokes. We had to use recycled WW2 jokes, which just didn't have the same topical relevance and humour.
WW2 jokes - for me it always starts with singing to the tune of Col. Bogey -
Hitler has only got one ball, Göring has two but very small, Himmler is somewhat sim'lar, But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.
My favorite soviet era joke - which I think I've mentioned on PB before - is Pravda reporting on a golf game between Nixon and Brezhnev.
According to Pravda, Brezhnev came second, but Nixon came next to last.
Putin will find very quickly that his backers don't want a conflagration in Ukraine.
Incidentally this Ukrainian Admiral must go down as the most shabby person ever to fly his flag. To accept a new appointment and then defect in just a few hours beggars belief.
Old joke, but probably relevant : 1966 world cup when a Russian referee and 100,000 said it was a goal. Mind you, that was in the day when a rouble was worth a rouble ;^)
Another old joke from my school days, but possibly also relevant soon - burglars broke into the Kremlin and stole next year's election results.
Aw man, we children of the 1990s lost out on so many good USSR jokes. We had to use recycled WW2 jokes, which just didn't have the same topical relevance and humour.
WW2 jokes - for me it always starts with singing to the tune of Col. Bogey -
Hitler has only got one ball, Göring has two but very small, Himmler is somewhat sim'lar, But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.
My favorite soviet era joke - which I think I've mentioned on PB before - is Pravda reporting on a golf game between Nixon and Brezhnev.
According to Pravda, Brezhnev came second, but Nixon came next to last.
Perfectly factual, yet utterly misleading.
My favourite cold war joke is the one attributed to Chairman Mao. When asked what would have been the effect on world politics if President Brezhnev had been assassinated instead of President Kennedy, he thought for a while then replied - "Well, I don't think Mr Onassis would have married Mrs Brezhnev."
Putin will find very quickly that his backers don't want a conflagration in Ukraine.
Incidentally this Ukrainian Admiral must go down as the most shabby person ever to fly his flag. To accept a new appointment and then defect in just a few hours beggars belief.
Old joke, but probably relevant : 1966 world cup when a Russian referee and 100,000 said it was a goal. Mind you, that was in the day when a rouble was worth a rouble ;^)
Another old joke from my school days, but possibly also relevant soon - burglars broke into the Kremlin and stole next year's election results.
Aw man, we children of the 1990s lost out on so many good USSR jokes. We had to use recycled WW2 jokes, which just didn't have the same topical relevance and humour.
WW2 jokes - for me it always starts with singing to the tune of Col. Bogey -
Hitler has only got one ball, Göring has two but very small, Himmler is somewhat sim'lar, But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.
My favorite soviet era joke - which I think I've mentioned on PB before - is Pravda reporting on a golf game between Nixon and Brezhnev.
According to Pravda, Brezhnev came second, but Nixon came next to last.
Perfectly factual, yet utterly misleading.
My favourite cold war joke is the one attributed to Chairman Mao. When asked what would have been the effect on world politics if President Brezhnev had been assassinated instead of President Kennedy, he thought for a while then replied - "Well, I don't think Mr Onassis would have married Mrs Brezhnev."
Ravi sees us home, always rely on an Essex boy to deliver
He was there at the end because he hadn't had a proper chance to get himself out in some stupid talentless way and he wasn't good enough to bat further up the order.
Why do we even give him drinks-carrying duties?
A calm head when everyone else's was losing theirs!
@another_richard - More grave matters this evening, but, briefly, what is impressive about Osborne's handling of the economy has been his near-perfect judgement in getting the public finances back towards a semblance of sanity without plunging the country into a maelstrom of insolvencies and unemployment. Against this, you keep quoting figures showing that all is not perfect with the economy, and that forecasts weren't met, as though those were some kind of clinching arguments. Yes, of course things are tough, and of course there is more to do - the starting point was the UK staring into the abyss, and (to everyone's surprise) world economic conditions, and particularly commodity-price inflation and the Eurozone mess, turned out to be much, much worse than expected. But Osborne kept his nerve, and things have progressed as well as they good have done. It will be a case-study for future economic historians, where the UK and the US will be cited as the two countries which got it right.
To reverse the question: if you think Osborne screwed up, who on earth do you think did better amongst finance ministers of major economies?
As regards house prices, you obviously haven't been following what is going on. I suggest you look through the results of the big housebuilding firms like Persimmon, Redrow, Bovis, Crest Nicholson, etc. They are building houses as fast as they possibly can. The policy is working.
So Britain is back to a house building boom. Screw manufacturing.
Comments
G'Nite PBers ....
I am much amused that in addition to your Maxwell style pension asset accounting that you don't know the difference between solvency ie debt and liquidity ie cashflow.
Your claim that house prices are only rising in nominal terms is also an eyeopener.
But your report that Osborne has no interest in ONS stats does ring true.
We are referring your endorsement to the CPSU Culture Committee.
Expect a knock on your front door at 3:00 am.
Tell you what Jack I'll back you on sending troops to the Ukraine just as long as those called up and sent in to the front lines are the sons and daughters of politicians.
10 things to remember about the crisis in Ukraine and the Crimea
http://stopwar.org.uk/news/ten-things-to-remember-about-the-crisis-in-ukraine-and-the-crimea#.UxOeC_l_uSr
I guess the Russians expected no shooting.
Like the new Ukrainian govermnent, I will not be provoked.
Did you ever check your PM inbox?
Now if like RN you are an affluent City cultist living in deepest Sussex then a Chancellor who is able to get house prices and City bonuses rising might well seem to be a veritable god in heaven.
However Conservative majorities aren't built on the likes of the good RN but upon attracting the support of the lower middle and skilled working classes in the midlands and north.
And it is here that Osborne's achievements amount to:
Three calendar years of falling industrial production
Falling productivity and real wages
A £600bn increase in government debt
A perpetual trade deficit
As elections steadily trend away from class based voting towards a rough split between right-wing wealth creators and left-wing wealth consumers then it is vital for Conservative fortunes that wealth creation is as widespread throughout Britain as possible. The belief that the City can create enough wealth by itself, irrespective of the economic fallacy, is disasterous for the Conservatives as it relegates most of the country to dependence upon the government for its income and subsequently dominance by the Labour political philosophy.
But RT is wonderful for capturing the tone of Moscow.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama
Al Jazeera, by contrast, I find extremely good and more free from bias than domestic UK broadcasters.
I think it important that, whether action is taken or not, options are considered for each one, and that's why the anti-war voices need to speak up each time, rather than we just take them to their logical conclusion and outright state we will never get involved anywhere.
I must say as well that for someone who often laments the stupidity of the West in not facing up to the long term trend of China becoming more dominant, you don't appear to care in this instance about any potential long term implications to committing indefinitely to never interfering with the foreign affairs power games of the world. To wit, 'People now don't care about x or want wars, so we should never do so', even if it was to our benefit apparently.
We may not want to be involved in disputes or wars, but then the whole existence of foreign affairs is that we are affected by how things play out in other nations - if we don't play the game our consciences might well be better, but it won't stop our opponents from playing it, and eventually that will be to our detriment.
I would also point out that plenty of people would call your red lines (getting involved when we or our closest allies are threatened, it is easy to beat the enemy, or some obvious genocide) as being out of step with the public, who don't give a sh*t about any of those things either, so we really are talking a matter of degree here.
Is this in fact true?
"Russia has not only emerged as the EU’s biggest gas supplier, but is also the biggest exporter of crude oil, uranium and even coal to the EU. In addition to this, Russia ranks third for electricity exports to the EU...Russia also has a reciprocal dependence, in terms of its energy exports, on the European energy market, which accounts for 88% of its oil exports, 70% of its gas exports and 50% of its coal exports."
There are large scale Russian troop movements North of Ukraine today, including what appear to be fresh troops brought into the region. Those forces are large and along with those deployed south East of Ukraine represent a not inconsiderable capability. The accumulated units and type are in excess of requirements to defend the borders, lets put it that way. The US reports a number of thousand of additional military personnel shipped into the Crimea on top of the 6000 shipped in already. It is in excess of the 'stability' requirement so its clearly designed to ensure absolutely overwhelming superiority in Crimea and make it hard for anyone to suggest they should leave....
Polish forces appear to be on the move, something the defence ministry acknowledged but have said is not related to events to their east. It is related to events.
The Russians look to have landed an intelligence gathering vessel into the Crimea as well. Wonder who it is monitoring, Ukrainian military or the rather unmentioned but noticeable appearance of NATO assets that I talked about in an earlier post.
The Russians do not look,. however, to have bargained on the Ukrainians in the Crimea holding firm. Its perfectly viable to just surround locations and wait it out but they demanded hours and hours ago that they Ukrainians down tools. Many of them have not.
Right, but how does that mean Russia should not be opposed? They are stacking the deck to impact what Crimea does and what Ukraine does. We also tried to do so. This is not some merely internal matter and we cannot pretend it is. Both us and them have support for our interference. This is not an issue of, oh, X wants to be Y so why should we care. Why is it ok for Russia to try to force an outcome it wants, with plenty of support, but apparently blasphemy for us to even talk about weaksauce options of defiance which we all know won't amount to anything anyway. The Russians are being the more aggressive actors in this, but it would be wrong to call them villains, particularly when many in the Crimea are happy for them to act as they are, but we aren't the villains either, and by always labelling our possible interventions as harmful or useless, that is what we are saying - that it is not ok for us to involve ourselves, but fine for others to do so.
It's the hypocrisy I just don't get to be honest. We and the Russians, and any other powers, all like to say that we only operate under international law and for the greater good and all that crap, but we all know each of us to a larger or greater degree acts as we can get away with to accrue the most benefit. That's sad but it's reality. But the unmistakable impression I get from so many commentators is that we are so arrogant and wrong to involve ourselves in anything, and that we are selfish and destructive. But nations won't not be inteferred with if we don't interfere. But apparently letting other powers have free rein to do whatever they want, which could end up negatively impacting our interests, is always the best option.
Hear, hear. An excellent post.
I remember receiving a rather rambling email via young Bob, which brings to mind the Liam Halligan column today in the Telegraph. I wouldn't want you to miss it as I know what a great admirer of him you are.
You may also be interested in that I have noticed a correlation between industiral output and home ownership. After rising throughout the 20th century to an all time peak just after 2000 they had each fallen by 2013 to their 1988 level.
There is clearly a general connection between the two factors - higher industrial output means a wealthier nation which leads to higher home ownership.
But I'll leave the exact calculation of the relationship to a PPE student. Provided that is there is one willing to think outside the metropolitan box.
We have spent the last few decades bringing about regime change across the world and pretending we were doing it for the greater good and now that has come back to bite us. The West deserves all it gets over the Ukraine.
either way it's the quantity that's amazing.
re:Polish military - would that be the Tanks, APC's and assorted kit being moved by rail from the Baltic north to the Ukrainian border. Seems at least an Armoured Division?
My point is that we are not blameless when it comes to interferring, and the Russian's certainly aren't (and more the point, are just as guilty as us as pretending they don't interfere for their own purposes), so why is it that it is beneficial to anybody, including Ukraine, for us to unilaterally simply stop playing power games right now? That doesn't stop Russia playing their own games, which hardly have universal support in Ukraine either.
I find it an absurdity to condemn Western actions in Ukraine as beyond the pale, deserve all they get for their arrogance and stupidty, but that that somehow means the Russians should be free to play the same power games arrogantly and stupidly, which by suggesting that we should never have interfered and should not now, when this will leave the Russians a free hand, is the only conclusion I am able to reach.
One rule for us (Interference is never ok, how dare we be so arrogant), one rule for Russia (To even diplomaticallty condemn them would be interference by us and so not ok, how dare we be so arrogant to seek to diplomatically oppose Russia separating Crimea from the rest of Ukraine - when even though many Crimeans support that does not make it ok, lest we think it would be ok for us to do so).
Ideally no-one would interfere in any one's business. But that is not what happens, and if we don't, it doesn't stop others from doing it, and sometimes (maybe not even this time) keeping our options open and opposing someone elses, is required for our benefit and even that of others. Yes, this would apply to Russia too. I merely oppose the universal criticism of our interventions as something univesally and uniquely condemnatory in foreign policy, when sometimes it is necessary precisely because everyone is at it.
Interview with Polish General Staff spokeman (in Polish) here http://natemat.pl/93745,polska-armia-przegrupowuje-sie-na-wypadek-wojny-sztab-generalny-ruchy-wojska-maja-miejsce-ale-to-rutynowe-cwiczenia
The size of the move is clear from the photos - the armour was moved by night and was equally significant.
Seriously though, how far will this go? I had assumed that the endgoal would be that in exchange for Crimea becoming even more autonomous than it already was, but officially still within Ukraine, the Russians would not torpedo eventual financial support to prop up the new Kiev authorities.
This is a small confrontation in a small area, with minor implications. My concern is shutting off an entire option as a matter of principle is dangerously limiting, and that given you have taken a long term view when it comes to global economic realities, a longer term view of global power relations - tied to but not entirely subsumed within the economic reality - is merely prudent.
Eschew Obfuscation :-).
Annie Power confirmed for World hurdle
------------------
Bit of a shame shes not in the Champion, but she wins this.
You should make people manage it when 11pt arial. I believe that is the standard minimum thesedays to comply with poor of sight rules, and make their job all the harder to get your interest. Next year? Using 12pt.
To reverse the question: if you think Osborne screwed up, who on earth do you think did better amongst finance ministers of major economies?
As regards house prices, you obviously haven't been following what is going on. I suggest you look through the results of the big housebuilding firms like Persimmon, Redrow, Bovis, Crest Nicholson, etc. They are building houses as fast as they possibly can. The policy is working.
10pt arial with 0.5" margins all round - I didn't want to appear unreasonable :-)
Why do we even give him drinks-carrying duties?
Hitler has only got one ball,
Göring has two but very small,
Himmler is somewhat sim'lar,
But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.
My favorite soviet era joke - which I think I've mentioned on PB before - is Pravda reporting on a golf game between Nixon and Brezhnev.
According to Pravda, Brezhnev came second, but Nixon came next to last.
Perfectly factual, yet utterly misleading.
WH at 15/8 for the World.
Hey ho.
When asked what would have been the effect on world politics if President Brezhnev had been assassinated instead of President Kennedy, he thought for a while then replied -
"Well, I don't think Mr Onassis would have married Mrs Brezhnev."
I backed her in the Champion too but NRNB
She is a great horse and its a bit of a shame she is not in the Champion. But she will take Buck's crown in the WH
On at 30+-1 with Betfair. Doubtful but the price was big enough - with Annie out Willie can surely run UDS instead as well as the Fly.
Ravi is cool, just needs a break
:-)
Dare I say "productivity" ?