Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Still half asleep sorry, 6.
But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.
As Dan Hannan said before the referendum, you can like Europe but hate the EU, in the same way as you can like football but hate FIFA.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
Or probably not ?
You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though. It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.
It would.
In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).
Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.
Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.
Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.
I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.
It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.
What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.
I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.
You could do this really easily without any need for attack from the air. Sabotage at critical points in our energy infrastructure would be really, really easy.
It would also be an act of war.
I would not be surprised if some 'activist' groups start doing this. Of course, with no Russian help...
It took the IRA a decade of operating before it developed a cell structure do half of what you’re suggesting effectively. I don’t think Just Stop Oil or BLM, if they are the type of groups you imply, have anything like that kind of motivation or nous. And they like social media too much. Maybe you refer to another group?
Activist loons have already taken to cutting the Internet cables to arms manufacturers. Note the target: f'all to do with Israel itself, but something that is quite useful to Russia if it interferes with out military capabilities.
And before someone screeches: "You hate Russia!", well I don't like fascists. And there's lots of evidence that Russia is using various means to attack the west: from refugees to incentivising criminal gangs for attacks of varying kinds. This kind of action is very useful to Putin and Russia.
I don’t think you hate Russia. It’s your dislike of domestic pressure groups who don’t share your opinions I’m concerned about. And for the avoidance of doubt I think that linking them to offensive action by Russia is loony tunes stuff.
Russia and Belarus uses immigrants to cause chaos, including flying them over and taking them to the border: "The border has been a flashpoint since migrants started flocking there in 2021, after Belarus, a close Russian ally, reportedly opened travel agencies in the Middle East to offer a new unofficial route into Europe - a move the European Union said was designed to create a crisis." https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-reintroduce-buffer-zone-belarus-border-pm-says-2024-05-29/ (+many more)
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)
IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.
I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.
And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.
I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.
* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.
Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.
Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.
Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.
Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.
Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.
Yes, the war is a disaster for Russia.
But it could still end up being worse for Ukraine. It's future as an independent country is still on the line, and I have two major doubts about the future of the war.
One, I do not think that Europe can provide enough support to Ukraine to prevent their defeat without the US.
Two, I fear that Biden is heading for defeat and that Trump will abandon Ukraine.
I heard a slightly more rational analysis (of the republican position, not you) on the Briefing Room on R4 yesterday.
Some Republicans are concerned about the blank cheque problem. Are they committed to support Ukraine no matter how much?
More, however, and it was suggested that this included Trump, are concerned about the clear path to victory problem. What does victory look like? How can Ukraine, for all its bravery, defeat a country the size of Russia? It was being suggested by some Republicans that if Trump did see a way to victory he would be on board and want to claim that victory but he is not willing to invest open ended sums into a bloody stalemate.
I don't agree with this analysis but it does make more sense than the way the Republican position is all too often portrayed in this country (servants of Putin, corrupt etc).
For me, victory for Ukraine will be either from the collapse of the kleptocracy that controls Russia (like the end of Russia's engagement in WW1) or by driving Russian forces back out of Ukrainian territory. Both are difficult and have been made more so by the parsimonious response of European countries in particular in both the speed and scale of support. We really need to step up our game and stop moaning that the US is not doing enough when it is doing so much more than everyone else.
I think that, ultimately, Trump has an inferiority complex when it comes to dictators like Putin and Xi. Consequently, like some PB.com posters, he will be deterred by Russians warnings of escalation, and so wouldn't take the necessary steps for Ukrainian victory.
The West does need to create a strategy for victory. The mindset is still in February 2022 - desperate measures to prevent defeat - rather than working out how to achieve victory.
Yes, there’s 10% on the fringe right and 10% on the fringe left in the US, who agree that Ukraine is basically Russian territory and are on Putin’s side.
About a third of US aid to Ukraine is C-5Ms full of cash, running at about $25bn/year. So it's not the whole deal, but it's not nothing.
Just imagine paying £10ks for that survey and getting the same result as last time.
Savanta - you did say to ask the same respondents, right?
Wouldn't talking to the same respondents a couple of weeks apart actually be quite useful in terms of detection of movement? At least, if you did, you could say the movement is "real" in the sense that the movements are in fact people changing their mind. If you're taking two different samples of 1000 people a couple of weeks apart, and one party is up 2% and the other down 2%, that could be movement... or it could simply be the fact it's a different sample.
Parties regularly do this with canvassing. A switch analysis is far more informative than raw percentages.
I mean, there are reasons pollsters don't just keep going back to the same group as it would rely heavily on the original group being representative (which they may not be, simply due to sampling error) and having a "panel" may in itself influence behaviour.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Barty - go and read a history book. This country has always described itself as European. Despite cosplaying as a sovereign state we have always been beholden to the entity that controls the balance of power in Europe - even at the height of empire. That’s why our foreign policy was to avoid a country holding it. Thanks to your facile and ahistorical campaign we now are beholden to the EU and cannot influence it. You don’t understand what it is to be British as you clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the last 1000 years of our history beyond how it intersects with that of Australia.
We've moved on in the past thousand years.
Yes a hundred plus years ago there was a good reason to oppose European unification under German or French or Prussian or Austrian or any other leadership depending upon the era.
But we've moved on. If they want to unify peacefully, let them. Nowt to do with us anymore.
The world is much more interconnected now and it's attitudes like yours that are ossified in the past.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Barty - go and read a history book. This country has always described itself as European. Despite cosplaying as a sovereign state we have always been beholden to the entity that controls the balance of power in Europe - even at the height of empire. That’s why our foreign policy was to avoid a country holding it. Thanks to your facile and ahistorical campaign we now are beholden to the EU and cannot influence it. You don’t understand what it is to be British as you clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the last 1000 years of our history beyond how it intersects with that of Australia.
One of the important fantasy bits of That Dan Hannan Article was that other countries would join us in leaving. Partly to magic away the Ireland problems, but also because the UK would implicitly lead Free Europe.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)
IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.
I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.
And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.
I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.
* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.
Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.
Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.
Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.
Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.
Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.
Yes, the war is a disaster for Russia.
But it could still end up being worse for Ukraine. It's future as an independent country is still on the line, and I have two major doubts about the future of the war.
One, I do not think that Europe can provide enough support to Ukraine to prevent their defeat without the US.
Two, I fear that Biden is heading for defeat and that Trump will abandon Ukraine.
I heard a slightly more rational analysis (of the republican position, not you) on the Briefing Room on R4 yesterday.
Some Republicans are concerned about the blank cheque problem. Are they committed to support Ukraine no matter how much?
More, however, and it was suggested that this included Trump, are concerned about the clear path to victory problem. What does victory look like? How can Ukraine, for all its bravery, defeat a country the size of Russia? It was being suggested by some Republicans that if Trump did see a way to victory he would be on board and want to claim that victory but he is not willing to invest open ended sums into a bloody stalemate.
I don't agree with this analysis but it does make more sense than the way the Republican position is all too often portrayed in this country (servants of Putin, corrupt etc).
For me, victory for Ukraine will be either from the collapse of the kleptocracy that controls Russia (like the end of Russia's engagement in WW1) or by driving Russian forces back out of Ukrainian territory. Both are difficult and have been made more so by the parsimonious response of European countries in particular in both the speed and scale of support. We really need to step up our game and stop moaning that the US is not doing enough when it is doing so much more than everyone else.
That ignores the Afghan and Vietnam lessons. The North Vietnamese did not drive the American forces out of Vietnam: instead, they made the war far too costly for it to be continued.
The same thing happened in the 1980s with Afghanistan. The Russians were not militarily defeated per se; but the occupation was made not worth the bother. And the same thing happened three decades later with the Americans in the same country.
The questions are if, and at what point, Russia decides the war is not worth the pain it is causing to itself (and that pain is, after only two years, far greater than any of the wars I mentioned above). This has been made more complex by the fact they've claimed large swathes of Ukraine as *their* territory - something that was never done in those other wars.
*If* Russia was to 'win', then I expect a massive depopulation of Ukrainians from Ukrainian territory, as Russia attempts to stop the population fighting them in an insurgency. That's something the appeasers (not you) never mention. It's not as if Russia is not already doing it in the areas they control...
Incidentally, if you follow the various people who've taken over from Oryx, they are showing the same old pattern - a tanks of ancient vintage, SPGs and lots of APCs of similar vintage and a sprinkling of T-90 and other new built.
Just imagine paying £10ks for that survey and getting the same result as last time.
Savanta - you did say to ask the same respondents, right?
Wouldn't talking to the same respondents a couple of weeks apart actually be quite useful in terms of detection of movement? At least, if you did, you could say the movement is "real" in the sense that the movements are in fact people changing their mind. If you're taking two different samples of 1000 people a couple of weeks apart, and one party is up 2% and the other down 2%, that could be movement... or it could simply be the fact it's a different sample.
Parties regularly do this with canvassing. A switch analysis is far more informative than raw percentages.
I mean, there are reasons pollsters don't just keep going back to the same group as it would rely heavily on the original group being representative (which they may not be, simply due to sampling error) and having a "panel" may in itself influence behaviour.
If they used the same panel, something limited like 20 switchers in a panel of 1000 with 300 discarded for DK etc would produce big swings. You'd be reporting a shift in sentiment on a handful of people. If you get that movement across a fresh sample of 1000 it's much more likely to be on to something. If then confirmed by the next 1000 etc etc
Zuma’s party seems to be the difference maker here - though the centrist dad ascendency is reaching the Saffers too, it seems, as the DA seem to be improving their share.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Still half asleep sorry, 6.
But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.
They may be on the continent of America but American refers to citizenship of the country called America.
We don't have European citizenship post Brexit, whether you like it or not.
Yuge-if-true breaking news on PB
Britain no longer part of Europe Japan no longer part of Asia Madagascar no longer part of Africa Islas Malvinas… hang on
Britain is a part of Europe. Japan is a part of Asia.
But American typically doesn't mean part of the continent of America, it means part of the country of America.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Still half asleep sorry, 6.
But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.
They may be on the continent of America but American refers to citizenship of the country called America.
We don't have European citizenship post Brexit, whether you like it or not.
Yuge-if-true breaking news on PB
Britain no longer part of Europe Japan no longer part of Asia Madagascar no longer part of Africa Islas Malvinas… hang on
Britain is a part of Europe. Japan is a part of Asia.
But American typically doesn't mean part of the continent of America, it means part of the country of America.
What about a North American?
EDIT: also that comment wasn’t particularly aimed at you.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)
IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.
I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.
And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.
I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.
* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.
Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.
Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.
Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.
Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.
Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.
Yes, the war is a disaster for Russia.
But it could still end up being worse for Ukraine. It's future as an independent country is still on the line, and I have two major doubts about the future of the war.
One, I do not think that Europe can provide enough support to Ukraine to prevent their defeat without the US.
Two, I fear that Biden is heading for defeat and that Trump will abandon Ukraine.
I heard a slightly more rational analysis (of the republican position, not you) on the Briefing Room on R4 yesterday.
Some Republicans are concerned about the blank cheque problem. Are they committed to support Ukraine no matter how much?
More, however, and it was suggested that this included Trump, are concerned about the clear path to victory problem. What does victory look like? How can Ukraine, for all its bravery, defeat a country the size of Russia? It was being suggested by some Republicans that if Trump did see a way to victory he would be on board and want to claim that victory but he is not willing to invest open ended sums into a bloody stalemate.
I don't agree with this analysis but it does make more sense than the way the Republican position is all too often portrayed in this country (servants of Putin, corrupt etc).
For me, victory for Ukraine will be either from the collapse of the kleptocracy that controls Russia (like the end of Russia's engagement in WW1) or by driving Russian forces back out of Ukrainian territory. Both are difficult and have been made more so by the parsimonious response of European countries in particular in both the speed and scale of support. We really need to step up our game and stop moaning that the US is not doing enough when it is doing so much more than everyone else.
That ignores the Afghan and Vietnam lessons. The North Vietnamese did not drive the American forces out of Vietnam: instead, they made the war far too costly for it to be continued.
The same thing happened in the 1980s with Afghanistan. The Russians were not militarily defeated per se; but the occupation was made not worth the bother. And the same thing happened three decades later with the Americans in the same country.
The questions are if, and at what point, Russia decides the war is not worth the pain it is causing to itself (and that pain is, after only two years, far greater than any of the wars I mentioned above). This has been made more complex by the fact they've claimed large swathes of Ukraine as *their* territory - something that was never done in those other wars.
*If* Russia was to 'win', then I expect a massive depopulation of Ukrainians from Ukrainian territory, as Russia attempts to stop the population fighting them in an insurgency. That's something the appeasers (not you) never mention. It's not as if Russia is not already doing it in the areas they control...
The difference is that the US is subject to democratic pressures in a way that the Russian kleptocracy isn't. America lost the will to win in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. In both they could have persevered, they had the military capacity to do so, but the populace were no longer persuaded it was worth the cost. Who gives a toss about what the populace of Russia thinks? Certainly not Putin and his gang.
Listening to Labour ruling out tax increases it is becoming very obvious that they are seeking the private sector to invest many billions in an attempt to increase growth to pay for all the goodies
This is straight out of the Gordon Brown playbook and disastrous PFI scandal or am I wrong ?
I’ll take Gordon Brown over Osbourne, Kwarteng and Hunt any day of the week.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
I don't think it's failed yet and those are not the reasons. Nobody who knows anything about it in the upper reaches of the DoD, Pentagon, MoD, etc. would have doubted the Russian resolve and capacity to keep fighting in the face of losses that would have cause any Western government to throw the towel in.
Part of the problem is that gullible ultras have swallowed and then faithfully regurgitated Ukrainian lies about Russian losses. So the answer to how can Russia keep taking this number of casualties is that they are probably not.
The other issue is that Biden, and to the very minor extent that it matters, the other Western leaders have never articulated any sort of definitive goal for their involvement in the SMO. There is no strategy beyond keeping Ukraine in the fight until next weekend.
However, Ukraine are (just) still in there swinging, so it's not over yet.
Is anyone at all saying this will shift Trump's hardcore fanbase?
The issue is the swing/independent voters rather than raging Trumpers. I can see how this COULD work in his favour with those voters - a narrative might develop amongst those voters in Arizona, say, that Trump has been a bit harshly treated by a liberal-leaning jury in Manhattan. But an alternative is that they see the jurors as people a bit like them, faithfully deciding a case on evidence, and being attacked for it by a bullying liar. But that won't primarily be decided by a known figure in Trumpworld raging on Fox.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
We are all still citizens of the continent of Europe.
Brexit didn't make the British, say, African....
I'm not, I live on an island off the coast of Europe.
If you think plate tectonics alters the fact you presumably think the Spanish are Africans?
You are on the same tectonic plate as the rest of Europe; the Eurasian plate. Geology trumps Oceanography.
There's no reason why that should be so. If people think it does I think that's largely because they think tectonics is about continents because of Wegener's initial stab at the question. Big continents and small islands remains a useful distinction. We didn't rebadge humans as apes after Darwin.
The reasons we are European are geographical, ecological, historical, cultural. We are part of the same biome with the same plant and animal species, we share each others air pollution, the same frontal systems at the same time, our royal family is part of the same lineage as half the royal families of Europe, we speak a European language, we’re part of the European transport system, integrated gas and electricity networks, petrochemical and automotive industries, people smuggling networks, the FLAP-D telecom grid, and so on.
Much more part of Europe than, say, Taiwan or Japan are part of Asia in fact.
If you want to go off culture, royal family, language etc then we share far more in common with many of our fellow Commonwealth nations that speak the English language and have the same monarch as we do than we do the diverse nations of Europe that speak other languages etc
Under your logic Australia is also European. It is in Eurovision I suppose.
Well in large parts of the world “European” means white of course. But Australia doesn’t share our geography, biome, frontal systems, air pollution, telecoms grid, electricity and gas networks, petrochemical industry, auto industry or people smuggling networks. So to argue I am “going off culture” is somewhat ignoring about 90% of the post.
Listening to Labour ruling out tax increases it is becoming very obvious that they are seeking the private sector to invest many billions in an attempt to increase growth to pay for all the goodies
This is straight out of the Gordon Brown playbook and disastrous PFI scandal or am I wrong ?
Nope but you can't really make the case that the Tories are any better either.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Still half asleep sorry, 6.
But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.
They may be on the continent of America but American refers to citizenship of the country called America.
We don't have European citizenship post Brexit, whether you like it or not.
Yuge-if-true breaking news on PB
Britain no longer part of Europe Japan no longer part of Asia Madagascar no longer part of Africa Islas Malvinas… hang on
Britain is a part of Europe. Japan is a part of Asia.
But American typically doesn't mean part of the continent of America, it means part of the country of America.
What about a North American?
EDIT: also that comment wasn’t particularly aimed at you.
Good question.
I don't think it's a very commonly used phrase but if it were used in America (or Canada) I suspect it'd be more likely interpreted to refer to the Northern States of the USA in a Civil War style context than Canadians.
Never known a Canadian yet who is happy to be called an American.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
Two. Eurasiafrica, America and a couple of big islands down south. And I am part of neither.
If Britain were part of Europe we would be having this conversation in German
Europeans all speak German for you? How worldly wise.
Clearly fixed links are ignored in your classification system if they run undersea. What about bridges though? Is Manhattan in America?
PS Luckyguy - Agreed that Canadians are American. Anyone who uses "America" to mean the USA is village-brained. Most US citizens don't even speak the language that's spoken by the largest number of Americans. (And in that language, nobody would ever make the mistake!) Thinking the USA equals America is just as ignorant as thinking England equals Britain, if not more so.
Try explaining that to my Canadian daughter in law
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)
IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.
I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.
And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.
I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.
* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.
Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.
Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.
Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.
Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.
Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.
Yes, the war is a disaster for Russia.
But it could still end up being worse for Ukraine. It's future as an independent country is still on the line, and I have two major doubts about the future of the war.
One, I do not think that Europe can provide enough support to Ukraine to prevent their defeat without the US.
Two, I fear that Biden is heading for defeat and that Trump will abandon Ukraine.
I heard a slightly more rational analysis (of the republican position, not you) on the Briefing Room on R4 yesterday.
Some Republicans are concerned about the blank cheque problem. Are they committed to support Ukraine no matter how much?
More, however, and it was suggested that this included Trump, are concerned about the clear path to victory problem. What does victory look like? How can Ukraine, for all its bravery, defeat a country the size of Russia? It was being suggested by some Republicans that if Trump did see a way to victory he would be on board and want to claim that victory but he is not willing to invest open ended sums into a bloody stalemate.
I don't agree with this analysis but it does make more sense than the way the Republican position is all too often portrayed in this country (servants of Putin, corrupt etc).
For me, victory for Ukraine will be either from the collapse of the kleptocracy that controls Russia (like the end of Russia's engagement in WW1) or by driving Russian forces back out of Ukrainian territory. Both are difficult and have been made more so by the parsimonious response of European countries in particular in both the speed and scale of support. We really need to step up our game and stop moaning that the US is not doing enough when it is doing so much more than everyone else.
That ignores the Afghan and Vietnam lessons. The North Vietnamese did not drive the American forces out of Vietnam: instead, they made the war far too costly for it to be continued.
The same thing happened in the 1980s with Afghanistan. The Russians were not militarily defeated per se; but the occupation was made not worth the bother. And the same thing happened three decades later with the Americans in the same country.
The questions are if, and at what point, Russia decides the war is not worth the pain it is causing to itself (and that pain is, after only two years, far greater than any of the wars I mentioned above). This has been made more complex by the fact they've claimed large swathes of Ukraine as *their* territory - something that was never done in those other wars.
*If* Russia was to 'win', then I expect a massive depopulation of Ukrainians from Ukrainian territory, as Russia attempts to stop the population fighting them in an insurgency. That's something the appeasers (not you) never mention. It's not as if Russia is not already doing it in the areas they control...
Incidentally, if you follow the various people who've taken over from Oryx, they are showing the same old pattern - a tanks of ancient vintage, SPGs and lots of APCs of similar vintage and a sprinkling of T-90 and other new built.
The T-90 is still basically the same old design they’ve been slowly updating since the ‘60s, with the ammunition under the turret, and a small detonation at the right point can blow them half way to the moon.
The T-14 is the new new tank, and they’ve not been spotted outside the Red Square parade ground. The rumour is they can’t make them without a whole pile of Western electronics.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Still half asleep sorry, 6.
But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.
They may be on the continent of America but American refers to citizenship of the country called America.
We don't have European citizenship post Brexit, whether you like it or not.
Yuge-if-true breaking news on PB
Britain no longer part of Europe Japan no longer part of Asia Madagascar no longer part of Africa Islas Malvinas… hang on
Britain is a part of Europe. Japan is a part of Asia.
But American typically doesn't mean part of the continent of America, it means part of the country of America.
What about a North American?
EDIT: also that comment wasn’t particularly aimed at you.
I had a folder in my outlook at work called “US clients”, but then I got a couple of Canadian projects so it’s now renamed “North American clients”.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
Or probably not ?
You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though. It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.
It would.
In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).
Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.
Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.
Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.
I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.
It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.
What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.
I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.
"Pretty lacking" is a bit optimistic.
Radar and QRA are good, what’s lacking is the ability to defend against a volley of missiles aimed at the UK, or dozens of fighter jets.
Not too sure the Russians can muster either of those at the moment, especially knowing that it would generate an overwhelming response from NATO.
The real weakness is, as others have suggested, a relatively small-scale attack on key nodes of critical infrastructure.
Those are the sorts of things our increased defence budget should be spent on. Cut the likely obsolete stuff like Challenger III.
Listening to Labour ruling out tax increases it is becoming very obvious that they are seeking the private sector to invest many billions in an attempt to increase growth to pay for all the goodies
This is straight out of the Gordon Brown playbook and disastrous PFI scandal or am I wrong ?
Nope but you can't really make the case that the Tories are any better either.
In *theory* small government investments in a project can be used to leverage many multiple of that from private sources.
I've mentioned before an idea of how get investment in clean vehicle technology* without spending any money before the next election. Offer a subsidy for each KWh of storage actually installed in a vehicle, in the UK. Subsidy is scaled according to the UK content of the storage - use a Chinese battery, get nothing.
*Notice I'm not saying battery - no picking winners. Even the winners whom seem to have won the race already.
Under analysis by Prof Curtice, the SNP would have 43 MSPs and Labour 41 MSPs if a Scottish Parliament election was held tomorrow. That signals a shift in support from Labour to the SNP, with the previous Savanta poll putting the SNP on just 35 Holyrood seats and Labour on 47.
Even if the SNP got 43 MSPs the only way they could stay in power at Holyrood would be confidence and supply from the Scottish Conservatives. That would require an end to any indyref2 talk but some Scottish Tory support for more Thatcherite economics from Swinney and Forbes
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)
IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.
I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.
And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.
I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.
* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.
Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.
Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.
Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.
Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.
Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.
Yes, the war is a disaster for Russia.
But it could still end up being worse for Ukraine. It's future as an independent country is still on the line, and I have two major doubts about the future of the war.
One, I do not think that Europe can provide enough support to Ukraine to prevent their defeat without the US.
Two, I fear that Biden is heading for defeat and that Trump will abandon Ukraine.
I heard a slightly more rational analysis (of the republican position, not you) on the Briefing Room on R4 yesterday.
Some Republicans are concerned about the blank cheque problem. Are they committed to support Ukraine no matter how much?
More, however, and it was suggested that this included Trump, are concerned about the clear path to victory problem. What does victory look like? How can Ukraine, for all its bravery, defeat a country the size of Russia? It was being suggested by some Republicans that if Trump did see a way to victory he would be on board and want to claim that victory but he is not willing to invest open ended sums into a bloody stalemate.
I don't agree with this analysis but it does make more sense than the way the Republican position is all too often portrayed in this country (servants of Putin, corrupt etc).
For me, victory for Ukraine will be either from the collapse of the kleptocracy that controls Russia (like the end of Russia's engagement in WW1) or by driving Russian forces back out of Ukrainian territory. Both are difficult and have been made more so by the parsimonious response of European countries in particular in both the speed and scale of support. We really need to step up our game and stop moaning that the US is not doing enough when it is doing so much more than everyone else.
That ignores the Afghan and Vietnam lessons. The North Vietnamese did not drive the American forces out of Vietnam: instead, they made the war far too costly for it to be continued.
The same thing happened in the 1980s with Afghanistan. The Russians were not militarily defeated per se; but the occupation was made not worth the bother. And the same thing happened three decades later with the Americans in the same country.
The questions are if, and at what point, Russia decides the war is not worth the pain it is causing to itself (and that pain is, after only two years, far greater than any of the wars I mentioned above). This has been made more complex by the fact they've claimed large swathes of Ukraine as *their* territory - something that was never done in those other wars.
*If* Russia was to 'win', then I expect a massive depopulation of Ukrainians from Ukrainian territory, as Russia attempts to stop the population fighting them in an insurgency. That's something the appeasers (not you) never mention. It's not as if Russia is not already doing it in the areas they control...
The difference is that the US is subject to democratic pressures in a way that the Russian kleptocracy isn't. America lost the will to win in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. In both they could have persevered, they had the military capacity to do so, but the populace were no longer persuaded it was worth the cost. Who gives a toss about what the populace of Russia thinks? Certainly not Putin and his gang.
It’s fair to say that the Russian media isn’t full of images of plane loads of coffins landing every few days.
There’s still enough money in Russia to pay off handsomely the families of dead soldiers.
The Western pressure really needs to be on China and India, who are both buying the Russian O&G output at a discount, and assisting their supply chains of capital equipment and spares.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)
IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.
I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.
And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.
I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.
* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.
Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.
Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.
Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.
Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.
Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.
Yes, the war is a disaster for Russia.
But it could still end up being worse for Ukraine. It's future as an independent country is still on the line, and I have two major doubts about the future of the war.
One, I do not think that Europe can provide enough support to Ukraine to prevent their defeat without the US.
Two, I fear that Biden is heading for defeat and that Trump will abandon Ukraine.
I heard a slightly more rational analysis (of the republican position, not you) on the Briefing Room on R4 yesterday.
Some Republicans are concerned about the blank cheque problem. Are they committed to support Ukraine no matter how much?
More, however, and it was suggested that this included Trump, are concerned about the clear path to victory problem. What does victory look like? How can Ukraine, for all its bravery, defeat a country the size of Russia? It was being suggested by some Republicans that if Trump did see a way to victory he would be on board and want to claim that victory but he is not willing to invest open ended sums into a bloody stalemate.
I don't agree with this analysis but it does make more sense than the way the Republican position is all too often portrayed in this country (servants of Putin, corrupt etc).
For me, victory for Ukraine will be either from the collapse of the kleptocracy that controls Russia (like the end of Russia's engagement in WW1) or by driving Russian forces back out of Ukrainian territory. Both are difficult and have been made more so by the parsimonious response of European countries in particular in both the speed and scale of support. We really need to step up our game and stop moaning that the US is not doing enough when it is doing so much more than everyone else.
That ignores the Afghan and Vietnam lessons. The North Vietnamese did not drive the American forces out of Vietnam: instead, they made the war far too costly for it to be continued.
The same thing happened in the 1980s with Afghanistan. The Russians were not militarily defeated per se; but the occupation was made not worth the bother. And the same thing happened three decades later with the Americans in the same country.
The questions are if, and at what point, Russia decides the war is not worth the pain it is causing to itself (and that pain is, after only two years, far greater than any of the wars I mentioned above). This has been made more complex by the fact they've claimed large swathes of Ukraine as *their* territory - something that was never done in those other wars.
*If* Russia was to 'win', then I expect a massive depopulation of Ukrainians from Ukrainian territory, as Russia attempts to stop the population fighting them in an insurgency. That's something the appeasers (not you) never mention. It's not as if Russia is not already doing it in the areas they control...
Incidentally, if you follow the various people who've taken over from Oryx, they are showing the same old pattern - a tanks of ancient vintage, SPGs and lots of APCs of similar vintage and a sprinkling of T-90 and other new built.
The T-90 is still basically the same old design they’ve been slowly updating since the ‘60s, with the ammunition under the turret, and a small detonation at the right point can blow them half way to the moon.
The T-14 is the new new tank, and they’ve not been spotted outside the Red Square parade ground. The rumour is they can’t make them without a whole pile of Western electronics.
Long term we probably underestimate the import substitution capabilities of a weakened but still militarily obsessed state like Russia. Iran shows you can be under crippling economic sanctions for years or decades, and so long as you have a few friends out there (and Russia has more than Iran) you can remain in power in your own country and project military power abroad while your population suffers in poverty. North Korea is exhibit B, too. The tenacious pariah state.
The “Iranification” of Russia is not a phrase I’ve seen deployed but it’s potentially useful.
Nobody expects Trump's Fox backers or the MAGA crowd to have changed their mind, they would likely still back Trump even if he was convicted of multiple murders.
It is the reaction of Independents and swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and Nevada that matters
Listening to Labour ruling out tax increases it is becoming very obvious that they are seeking the private sector to invest many billions in an attempt to increase growth to pay for all the goodies
This is straight out of the Gordon Brown playbook and disastrous PFI scandal or am I wrong ?
I’ll take Gordon Brown over Osbourne, Kwarteng and Hunt any day of the week.
That doesn't answer the question
Is this the PFI scheme revisited ?
Depends what projects and how the contracts are drawn up.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with PFI, just that Brown used it in the wrong things and a shambolic way.
And there are plenty of infrastructure projects which jolly well ought to be commercially viable.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)
IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.
I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.
And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.
I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.
* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.
Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.
Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.
Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.
Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.
Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.
Yes, the war is a disaster for Russia.
But it could still end up being worse for Ukraine. It's future as an independent country is still on the line, and I have two major doubts about the future of the war.
One, I do not think that Europe can provide enough support to Ukraine to prevent their defeat without the US.
Two, I fear that Biden is heading for defeat and that Trump will abandon Ukraine.
I heard a slightly more rational analysis (of the republican position, not you) on the Briefing Room on R4 yesterday.
Some Republicans are concerned about the blank cheque problem. Are they committed to support Ukraine no matter how much?
More, however, and it was suggested that this included Trump, are concerned about the clear path to victory problem. What does victory look like? How can Ukraine, for all its bravery, defeat a country the size of Russia? It was being suggested by some Republicans that if Trump did see a way to victory he would be on board and want to claim that victory but he is not willing to invest open ended sums into a bloody stalemate.
I don't agree with this analysis but it does make more sense than the way the Republican position is all too often portrayed in this country (servants of Putin, corrupt etc).
For me, victory for Ukraine will be either from the collapse of the kleptocracy that controls Russia (like the end of Russia's engagement in WW1) or by driving Russian forces back out of Ukrainian territory. Both are difficult and have been made more so by the parsimonious response of European countries in particular in both the speed and scale of support. We really need to step up our game and stop moaning that the US is not doing enough when it is doing so much more than everyone else.
That ignores the Afghan and Vietnam lessons. The North Vietnamese did not drive the American forces out of Vietnam: instead, they made the war far too costly for it to be continued.
The same thing happened in the 1980s with Afghanistan. The Russians were not militarily defeated per se; but the occupation was made not worth the bother. And the same thing happened three decades later with the Americans in the same country.
The questions are if, and at what point, Russia decides the war is not worth the pain it is causing to itself (and that pain is, after only two years, far greater than any of the wars I mentioned above). This has been made more complex by the fact they've claimed large swathes of Ukraine as *their* territory - something that was never done in those other wars.
*If* Russia was to 'win', then I expect a massive depopulation of Ukrainians from Ukrainian territory, as Russia attempts to stop the population fighting them in an insurgency. That's something the appeasers (not you) never mention. It's not as if Russia is not already doing it in the areas they control...
Incidentally, if you follow the various people who've taken over from Oryx, they are showing the same old pattern - a tanks of ancient vintage, SPGs and lots of APCs of similar vintage and a sprinkling of T-90 and other new built.
The T-90 is still basically the same old design they’ve been slowly updating since the ‘60s, with the ammunition under the turret, and a small detonation at the right point can blow them half way to the moon.
The T-14 is the new new tank, and they’ve not been spotted outside the Red Square parade ground. The rumour is they can’t make them without a whole pile of Western electronics.
It's a classic tank fail in another way - they had this brilliant new design of diesel engine. Which was so awesomely compact that they could make the engine compartment smaller.
The engine is a failure, and you can't just shove an older engine in the same space.
I'm not expecting anything. We all have, or should have, scars on our backs from "this will kill/save him" events. I'm waiting for the polls like a good viewcode should.
Voters like Tories’ policies — but Labour still well ahead in poll
Pledges on national service and cutting tax for pensioners have gone down well, but Rishi Sunak is struggling to convince voters
The Tories are struggling to convert popular policy pledges into increased support, as Labour maintains its commanding lead over the Conservatives in the polls.
The latest YouGov survey of voting intention for The Times shows the Tories are still trailing Labour by 25 points, a week into the campaign.
This is despite significant backing for Conservative plans to provide a tax cut for pensioners, scrap so-called “Mickey Mouse” degrees, and to bring in national service for 18-year-olds.
Overall YouGov found that just 6 per cent of voters had a better view of the Conservative party as a result of what they had seen and heard during the campaign so far, while 18 per cent had a worse view.
In contrast Labour, which has made no significant policy announcements, did better. YouGov found that 12 per cent of voters said they had a better view of Labour than they had at the start of the campaign while 10 per cent had a worse view.
Overall the Conservatives are up one point on 21 per cent, Labour are down one point on 46 per cent while support for Reform UK has increased from 12 per cent to 15 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are down one point on 8 per cent.
The Tories’ low ratings came despite the poll finding that showed Rishi Sunak’s policy blitz had been largely popular with voters.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Still half asleep sorry, 6.
But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.
They may be on the continent of America but American refers to citizenship of the country called America.
We don't have European citizenship post Brexit, whether you like it or not.
Yuge-if-true breaking news on PB
Britain no longer part of Europe Japan no longer part of Asia Madagascar no longer part of Africa Islas Malvinas… hang on
A pedant writes: Madagascar was never part of Africa - off a different chunk of Gondwanaland entirely (ie what is now India).
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)
IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.
I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.
And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.
I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.
* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.
Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.
Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.
Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.
Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.
Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.
Yes, the war is a disaster for Russia.
But it could still end up being worse for Ukraine. It's future as an independent country is still on the line, and I have two major doubts about the future of the war.
One, I do not think that Europe can provide enough support to Ukraine to prevent their defeat without the US.
Two, I fear that Biden is heading for defeat and that Trump will abandon Ukraine.
I heard a slightly more rational analysis (of the republican position, not you) on the Briefing Room on R4 yesterday.
Some Republicans are concerned about the blank cheque problem. Are they committed to support Ukraine no matter how much?
More, however, and it was suggested that this included Trump, are concerned about the clear path to victory problem. What does victory look like? How can Ukraine, for all its bravery, defeat a country the size of Russia? It was being suggested by some Republicans that if Trump did see a way to victory he would be on board and want to claim that victory but he is not willing to invest open ended sums into a bloody stalemate.
I don't agree with this analysis but it does make more sense than the way the Republican position is all too often portrayed in this country (servants of Putin, corrupt etc).
For me, victory for Ukraine will be either from the collapse of the kleptocracy that controls Russia (like the end of Russia's engagement in WW1) or by driving Russian forces back out of Ukrainian territory. Both are difficult and have been made more so by the parsimonious response of European countries in particular in both the speed and scale of support. We really need to step up our game and stop moaning that the US is not doing enough when it is doing so much more than everyone else.
That ignores the Afghan and Vietnam lessons. The North Vietnamese did not drive the American forces out of Vietnam: instead, they made the war far too costly for it to be continued.
The same thing happened in the 1980s with Afghanistan. The Russians were not militarily defeated per se; but the occupation was made not worth the bother. And the same thing happened three decades later with the Americans in the same country.
The questions are if, and at what point, Russia decides the war is not worth the pain it is causing to itself (and that pain is, after only two years, far greater than any of the wars I mentioned above). This has been made more complex by the fact they've claimed large swathes of Ukraine as *their* territory - something that was never done in those other wars.
*If* Russia was to 'win', then I expect a massive depopulation of Ukrainians from Ukrainian territory, as Russia attempts to stop the population fighting them in an insurgency. That's something the appeasers (not you) never mention. It's not as if Russia is not already doing it in the areas they control...
Incidentally, if you follow the various people who've taken over from Oryx, they are showing the same old pattern - a tanks of ancient vintage, SPGs and lots of APCs of similar vintage and a sprinkling of T-90 and other new built.
The T-90 is still basically the same old design they’ve been slowly updating since the ‘60s, with the ammunition under the turret, and a small detonation at the right point can blow them half way to the moon.
The T-14 is the new new tank, and they’ve not been spotted outside the Red Square parade ground. The rumour is they can’t make them without a whole pile of Western electronics.
Long term we probably underestimate the import substitution capabilities of a weakened but still militarily obsessed state like Russia. Iran shows you can be under crippling economic sanctions for years or decades, and so long as you have a few friends out there (and Russia has more than Iran) you can remain in power in your own country and project military power abroad while your population suffers in poverty. North Korea is exhibit B, too. The tenacious pariah state.
The “Iranification” of Russia is not a phrase I’ve seen deployed but it’s potentially useful.
They have China as a committed industrial supplier, so they're rather better off than Iran.
Though now Iran too is part of a new (in terms of economic heft) non-western economic network, that has China as its largest component.
Listening to Labour ruling out tax increases it is becoming very obvious that they are seeking the private sector to invest many billions in an attempt to increase growth to pay for all the goodies
This is straight out of the Gordon Brown playbook and disastrous PFI scandal or am I wrong ?
Nope but you can't really make the case that the Tories are any better either.
In *theory* small government investments in a project can be used to leverage many multiple of that from private sources.
I've mentioned before an idea of how get investment in clean vehicle technology* without spending any money before the next election. Offer a subsidy for each KWh of storage actually installed in a vehicle, in the UK. Subsidy is scaled according to the UK content of the storage - use a Chinese battery, get nothing.
*Notice I'm not saying battery - no picking winners. Even the winners whom seem to have won the race already.
But @Malmesbury subsidies are money. And we don't have any.
Voters like Tories’ policies — but Labour still well ahead in poll
Pledges on national service and cutting tax for pensioners have gone down well, but Rishi Sunak is struggling to convince voters
The Tories are struggling to convert popular policy pledges into increased support, as Labour maintains its commanding lead over the Conservatives in the polls.
The latest YouGov survey of voting intention for The Times shows the Tories are still trailing Labour by 25 points, a week into the campaign.
This is despite significant backing for Conservative plans to provide a tax cut for pensioners, scrap so-called “Mickey Mouse” degrees, and to bring in national service for 18-year-olds.
Overall YouGov found that just 6 per cent of voters had a better view of the Conservative party as a result of what they had seen and heard during the campaign so far, while 18 per cent had a worse view.
In contrast Labour, which has made no significant policy announcements, did better. YouGov found that 12 per cent of voters said they had a better view of Labour than they had at the start of the campaign while 10 per cent had a worse view.
Overall the Conservatives are up one point on 21 per cent, Labour are down one point on 46 per cent while support for Reform UK has increased from 12 per cent to 15 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are down one point on 8 per cent.
The Tories’ low ratings came despite the poll finding that showed Rishi Sunak’s policy blitz had been largely popular with voters.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Still half asleep sorry, 6.
But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.
They may be on the continent of America but American refers to citizenship of the country called America.
We don't have European citizenship post Brexit, whether you like it or not.
Yuge-if-true breaking news on PB
Britain no longer part of Europe Japan no longer part of Asia Madagascar no longer part of Africa Islas Malvinas… hang on
Britain is a part of Europe. Japan is a part of Asia.
But American typically doesn't mean part of the continent of America, it means part of the country of America.
What about a North American?
EDIT: also that comment wasn’t particularly aimed at you.
Good question.
I don't think it's a very commonly used phrase but if it were used in America (or Canada) I suspect it'd be more likely interpreted to refer to the Northern States of the USA in a Civil War style context than Canadians.
Never known a Canadian yet who is happy to be called an American.
1) Listen to yet another boring speech from Starmer/Sunak
2) Climb the Inaccessible Pinnacle with Ed Davey?
It's a brilliant media strategy
Tbh while I’m not sure it’s in brilliant territory, I tend to agree and it is a significantly different approach to everyone else. The risk is making him look silly/trivial but honestly I think it just improves his profile and the public generally like someone who doesn’t take themselves too seriously.
1) Listen to yet another boring speech from Starmer/Sunak
2) Climb the Inaccessible Pinnacle with Ed Davey?
It's a brilliant media strategy
Just get him to blow the Last Post at Menin Gate, and do a shift selling sticky tape at the local Office Supplies, and that'll be Google sorted Boris Cardboard Box Bus style.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Still half asleep sorry, 6.
But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.
They may be on the continent of America but American refers to citizenship of the country called America.
We don't have European citizenship post Brexit, whether you like it or not.
Yuge-if-true breaking news on PB
Britain no longer part of Europe Japan no longer part of Asia Madagascar no longer part of Africa Islas Malvinas… hang on
A pedant writes: Madagascar was never part of Africa - off a different chunk of Gondwanaland entirely (ie what is now India).
Does that mean Scotland should be joining NAFTA and not the EU...?
I think you get to take a bit of Cumberland with you too.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Still half asleep sorry, 6.
But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.
They may be on the continent of America but American refers to citizenship of the country called America.
We don't have European citizenship post Brexit, whether you like it or not.
Yuge-if-true breaking news on PB
Britain no longer part of Europe Japan no longer part of Asia Madagascar no longer part of Africa Islas Malvinas… hang on
A pedant writes: Madagascar was never part of Africa - off a different chunk of Gondwanaland entirely (ie what is now India).
Does that mean Scotland should be joining NAFTA and not the EU...?
I think you get to take a bit of Cumberland with you too.
Is anyone at all saying this will shift Trump's hardcore fanbase?
The issue is the swing/independent voters rather than raging Trumpers. I can see how this COULD work in his favour with those voters - a narrative might develop amongst those voters in Arizona, say, that Trump has been a bit harshly treated by a liberal-leaning jury in Manhattan. But an alternative is that they see the jurors as people a bit like them, faithfully deciding a case on evidence, and being attacked for it by a bullying liar. But that won't primarily be decided by a known figure in Trumpworld raging on Fox.
I fear that the Lawfare meme has considerable traction and that even many independents will listen to the "banana republic", political use of prosecution lines.
The prosecution for January 6th is absolutely fair enough and should have been brought at least 2 years earlier. The confidential papers case he really brought on himself because of his arrogant stupidity. The focus on this particular case is somewhat unhelpful in rebutting the lawfare argument. It is, at heart, a bit of a nonsense.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Barty - go and read a history book. This country has always described itself as European. Despite cosplaying as a sovereign state we have always been beholden to the entity that controls the balance of power in Europe - even at the height of empire. That’s why our foreign policy was to avoid a country holding it. Thanks to your facile and ahistorical campaign we now are beholden to the EU and cannot influence it. You don’t understand what it is to be British as you clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the last 1000 years of our history beyond how it intersects with that of Australia.
One of the important fantasy bits of That Dan Hannan Article was that other countries would join us in leaving. Partly to magic away the Ireland problems, but also because the UK would implicitly lead Free Europe.
1) Listen to yet another boring speech from Starmer/Sunak
2) Climb the Inaccessible Pinnacle with Ed Davey?
It's a brilliant media strategy
Just get him to blow the Last Post at Menin Gate, and do a shift selling sticky tape at the local Office Supplies, and that'll be Google sorted Boris Cardboard Box Bus style.
No, no, no. Anything to do with Post is to be strictly avoided.
The more you look at this conviction the worse it gets. A politically motivated lawyer gunning explicitly for an elected president?
My American friends, it’s time to pluck the musket from the thatch, and face the Redcoats. It’s time to Fight
You haven't looked at it more. I've followed this trial every day - the defense has some points they scored (some inconsistencies, the difficulties tying Trump directly to some actions), they have some points they could raise on appeal (the question of the second crime which had to be undertaken to make it a felony for example), but the case was not reliant on Cohen (though he was significant). Trump's lawyers have made very different arguments to those the media talking heads make - whether you buy the former's arguments or not, they were not making the case the media heads were.
And as for the DA's office being politically motivated, well, unfortunately that is the american legal system - it sucks, but that is their way.
As I mentioned, the most damning testimony came from people who like Trump. People who said they admire him. People who worked for him, and people who still work for him. They were not out to get him, they were compelled to testify and tell the truth.
It's fine to question any verdict, but there's a lot more to this case than Cohen, if that is what you are reading you are reading a lie.
Leon's not interested in the facts, he's just like most of the hard-right blowhards he admires, spouting rubbish.
Somewhat blunts Labour’s attacks on “parachuted in” candidates in adjacent Brighton Pavilion….
I think Labour will still win Brighton Kemptown, though their vote will be significantly depressed. Many of the local activists seem to have taken their bats home. They'd have been better off 'selecting' a current local (councillor, probably Sankey, or maybe Nancy Platts) to keep the door-knocking troops happy.
1) Listen to yet another boring speech from Starmer/Sunak
2) Climb the Inaccessible Pinnacle with Ed Davey?
It's a brilliant media strategy
Just get him to blow the Last Post at Menin Gate, and do a shift selling sticky tape at the local Office Supplies, and that'll be Google sorted Boris Cardboard Box Bus style.
No, no, no. Anything to do with Post is to be strictly avoided.
You misunderstand. The idea is to overwrite unfortunate Google searches permanently, like 'Boris Bus'.
1) Listen to yet another boring speech from Starmer/Sunak
2) Climb the Inaccessible Pinnacle with Ed Davey?
It's a brilliant media strategy
Tbh while I’m not sure it’s in brilliant territory, I tend to agree and it is a significantly different approach to everyone else. The risk is making him look silly/trivial but honestly I think it just improves his profile and the public generally like someone who doesn’t take themselves too seriously.
At some point his party and donors are going to gently suggest he's not there to have a lovely old time.
Voters like Tories’ policies — but Labour still well ahead in poll
Pledges on national service and cutting tax for pensioners have gone down well, but Rishi Sunak is struggling to convince voters
The Tories are struggling to convert popular policy pledges into increased support, as Labour maintains its commanding lead over the Conservatives in the polls.
The latest YouGov survey of voting intention for The Times shows the Tories are still trailing Labour by 25 points, a week into the campaign.
This is despite significant backing for Conservative plans to provide a tax cut for pensioners, scrap so-called “Mickey Mouse” degrees, and to bring in national service for 18-year-olds.
Overall YouGov found that just 6 per cent of voters had a better view of the Conservative party as a result of what they had seen and heard during the campaign so far, while 18 per cent had a worse view.
In contrast Labour, which has made no significant policy announcements, did better. YouGov found that 12 per cent of voters said they had a better view of Labour than they had at the start of the campaign while 10 per cent had a worse view.
Overall the Conservatives are up one point on 21 per cent, Labour are down one point on 46 per cent while support for Reform UK has increased from 12 per cent to 15 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are down one point on 8 per cent.
The Tories’ low ratings came despite the poll finding that showed Rishi Sunak’s policy blitz had been largely popular with voters.
We're told that if Trump's crimes are ignored, he benefits electorally from showing he can get away with anything. We're told if he's prosecuted and it fails, he benefits electorally from being exonerated. We're told if he's prosecuted and it succeeds, he benefits electorally from claiming to be politically harassed.
But at the end of the day, if you can't do something beneficial to yourself, default to doing what is right.
This outcome was right.
The problem we have is that, in a political debate, the truth only wins if people place a value on the truth as a thing in itself, even when it tells them something they don't like to hear. Otherwise the lies will win because they can be tailored to be more attractive.
I'm the US the Democrats are somewhat more tethered to reality, and Trump continues to avoid the electoral oblivion he deserves because there are enough voters willing to believe lies. So it really didn't matter what happens, because the political message isn't tethered to reality, so it can adjust to any eventuality.
Britain is not so far gone, but you can see the same thing, with the almost universal belief that all the nice things can be paid for by other people/cutting waste.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.
Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?
People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.
Utter rubbish. What else would we be?
British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.
They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.
4?
They're not American, they're Canadian. We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc
Still half asleep sorry, 6.
But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.
They may be on the continent of America but American refers to citizenship of the country called America.
We don't have European citizenship post Brexit, whether you like it or not.
Yuge-if-true breaking news on PB
Britain no longer part of Europe Japan no longer part of Asia Madagascar no longer part of Africa Islas Malvinas… hang on
A pedant writes: Madagascar was never part of Africa - off a different chunk of Gondwanaland entirely (ie what is now India).
Populated from Indonesia too, I believe. Quite impressive ocean crossing.
Voters like Tories’ policies — but Labour still well ahead in poll
Pledges on national service and cutting tax for pensioners have gone down well, but Rishi Sunak is struggling to convince voters
The Tories are struggling to convert popular policy pledges into increased support, as Labour maintains its commanding lead over the Conservatives in the polls.
The latest YouGov survey of voting intention for The Times shows the Tories are still trailing Labour by 25 points, a week into the campaign.
This is despite significant backing for Conservative plans to provide a tax cut for pensioners, scrap so-called “Mickey Mouse” degrees, and to bring in national service for 18-year-olds.
Overall YouGov found that just 6 per cent of voters had a better view of the Conservative party as a result of what they had seen and heard during the campaign so far, while 18 per cent had a worse view.
In contrast Labour, which has made no significant policy announcements, did better. YouGov found that 12 per cent of voters said they had a better view of Labour than they had at the start of the campaign while 10 per cent had a worse view.
Overall the Conservatives are up one point on 21 per cent, Labour are down one point on 46 per cent while support for Reform UK has increased from 12 per cent to 15 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are down one point on 8 per cent.
The Tories’ low ratings came despite the poll finding that showed Rishi Sunak’s policy blitz had been largely popular with voters.
Voters like Tories’ policies — but Labour still well ahead in poll
Pledges on national service and cutting tax for pensioners have gone down well, but Rishi Sunak is struggling to convince voters
The Tories are struggling to convert popular policy pledges into increased support, as Labour maintains its commanding lead over the Conservatives in the polls.
The latest YouGov survey of voting intention for The Times shows the Tories are still trailing Labour by 25 points, a week into the campaign.
This is despite significant backing for Conservative plans to provide a tax cut for pensioners, scrap so-called “Mickey Mouse” degrees, and to bring in national service for 18-year-olds.
Overall YouGov found that just 6 per cent of voters had a better view of the Conservative party as a result of what they had seen and heard during the campaign so far, while 18 per cent had a worse view.
In contrast Labour, which has made no significant policy announcements, did better. YouGov found that 12 per cent of voters said they had a better view of Labour than they had at the start of the campaign while 10 per cent had a worse view.
Overall the Conservatives are up one point on 21 per cent, Labour are down one point on 46 per cent while support for Reform UK has increased from 12 per cent to 15 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are down one point on 8 per cent.
The Tories’ low ratings came despite the poll finding that showed Rishi Sunak’s policy blitz had been largely popular with voters.
Thanks for that. Quite remarkable how close they were under all the various circumstances.
I think the time has come to call this a landslide for Labour.
Best news I've had all day.
I am going to laugh so much if they end up with a majority of about 10, or better still have to be propped up by the buffoon in the wetsuit.
I suspect come July 5th we will be laughing at how little your desires match the new reality.
Although I suspect governing with a majority of about 250 will in many ways be harder than a small majority because many Labour MPs will never have any chance of becoming a Minister..
That's obviously the Holyrood list only, though, so different from Westminster (and incomplete without the constituency data which it tends to complement rather than emulate).
Comments
https://x.com/Pal_action/status/1795437306893193325
Russia and Belarus uses immigrants to cause chaos, including flying them over and taking them to the border:
"The border has been a flashpoint since migrants started flocking there in 2021, after Belarus, a close Russian ally, reportedly opened travel agencies in the Middle East to offer a new unofficial route into Europe - a move the European Union said was designed to create a crisis."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-reintroduce-buffer-zone-belarus-border-pm-says-2024-05-29/ (+many more)
Russia uses criminal gangs in Europe:
https://ecfr.eu/publication/crimintern_how_the_kremlin_uses_russias_criminal_networks_in_europe/
https://lansinginstitute.org/2023/07/19/russian-intelligence-exploits-gangs-in-operations-abroad/
Russia would be stupid *not* to be encouraging the activist groups. At the very least.
(It would be no less spurious than Daly's complaint.)
The West does need to create a strategy for victory. The mindset is still in February 2022 - desperate measures to prevent defeat - rather than working out how to achieve victory.
Parties regularly do this with canvassing. A switch analysis is far more informative than raw percentages.
I mean, there are reasons pollsters don't just keep going back to the same group as it would rely heavily on the original group being representative (which they may not be, simply due to sampling error) and having a "panel" may in itself influence behaviour.
Yes a hundred plus years ago there was a good reason to oppose European unification under German or French or Prussian or Austrian or any other leadership depending upon the era.
But we've moved on. If they want to unify peacefully, let them. Nowt to do with us anymore.
The world is much more interconnected now and it's attitudes like yours that are ossified in the past.
That hasn't happened, and it does change things.
Do I win a prize for dorkiest comment of the day?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/31/south-africa-elections-live-results-2024-by-the-numbers-on-day-2
Zuma’s party seems to be the difference maker here - though the centrist dad ascendency is reaching the Saffers too, it seems, as the DA seem to be improving their share.
Japan is a part of Asia.
But American typically doesn't mean part of the continent of America, it means part of the country of America.
Fear unbalanced.
EDIT: also that comment wasn’t particularly aimed at you.
Is this the PFI scheme revisited ?
The issue is the swing/independent voters rather than raging Trumpers. I can see how this COULD work in his favour with those voters - a narrative might develop amongst those voters in Arizona, say, that Trump has been a bit harshly treated by a liberal-leaning jury in Manhattan. But an alternative is that they see the jurors as people a bit like them, faithfully deciding a case on evidence, and being attacked for it by a bullying liar. But that won't primarily be decided by a known figure in Trumpworld raging on Fox.
I don't think it's a very commonly used phrase but if it were used in America (or Canada) I suspect it'd be more likely interpreted to refer to the Northern States of the USA in a Civil War style context than Canadians.
Never known a Canadian yet who is happy to be called an American.
The T-14 is the new new tank, and they’ve not been spotted outside the Red Square parade ground. The rumour is they can’t make them without a whole pile of Western electronics.
Cut the likely obsolete stuff like Challenger III.
I've mentioned before an idea of how get investment in clean vehicle technology* without spending any money before the next election. Offer a subsidy for each KWh of storage actually installed in a vehicle, in the UK. Subsidy is scaled according to the UK content of the storage - use a Chinese battery, get nothing.
*Notice I'm not saying battery - no picking winners. Even the winners whom seem to have won the race already.
There’s still enough money in Russia to pay off handsomely the families of dead soldiers.
The Western pressure really needs to be on China and India, who are both buying the Russian O&G output at a discount, and assisting their supply chains of capital equipment and spares.
The “Iranification” of Russia is not a phrase I’ve seen deployed but it’s potentially useful.
It is the reaction of Independents and swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and Nevada that matters
Caving? "I think I've found the bottom of Sunak's hole"
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with PFI, just that Brown used it in the wrong things and a shambolic way.
And there are plenty of infrastructure projects which jolly well ought to be commercially viable.
The engine is a failure, and you can't just shove an older engine in the same space.
https://x.com/CountBinface/status/1796203642837495910
'Son of Tong Woman Convicted of 34 Offences'
A pedant writes: Madagascar was never part of Africa - off a different chunk of Gondwanaland entirely (ie what is now India).
Though now Iran too is part of a new (in terms of economic heft) non-western economic network, that has China as its largest component.
1) Listen to yet another boring speech from Starmer/Sunak
2) Climb the Inaccessible Pinnacle with Ed Davey?
It's a brilliant media strategy
And did you see how far out they were in London?
Their panel seems to regularly find twice the support for Reform there actually is.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/24357056.chris-ward-selected-brighton-kemptown-peacehaven-candidate/
Somewhat blunts Labour’s attacks on “parachuted in” candidates in adjacent Brighton Pavilion….
Like Frank Lloyd Wright.
I prefer Old Speckled Hen but doubt I'd have made it past your first line.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjr8LsEnUaw
I think you get to take a bit of Cumberland with you too.
The prosecution for January 6th is absolutely fair enough and should have been brought at least 2 years earlier. The confidential papers case he really brought on himself because of his arrogant stupidity. The focus on this particular case is somewhat unhelpful in rebutting the lawfare argument. It is, at heart, a bit of a nonsense.
“Oldest ride - longest line! Woo!”
Thorpe Park however, Runnymede and Weybridge, on the outer fringes of yellow target seats, but William Hague got there first.
"Why, it's this one Viewcode: https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/ "
https://x.com/Savanta_UK/status/1796451550967300441?t=pXTq7EuqcSY4ezMo73jzYA&s=19
I'm the US the Democrats are somewhat more tethered to reality, and Trump continues to avoid the electoral oblivion he deserves because there are enough voters willing to believe lies. So it really didn't matter what happens, because the political message isn't tethered to reality, so it can adjust to any eventuality.
Britain is not so far gone, but you can see the same thing, with the almost universal belief that all the nice things can be paid for by other people/cutting waste.
Although I suspect governing with a majority of about 250 will in many ways be harder than a small majority because many Labour MPs will never have any chance of becoming a Minister..
NEW THREAD
Does anyone have the full lot?